throbber
IPR2015-00219 Paper No. 47
`IPR2015-00222 Paper No. 47
`IPR2015-00226 Paper No. 49
`IPR2015-00228 Paper No. 49
`March 14, 2016
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CORELOGIC, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2)
`IPR2015-00222 (Patent 8,065,352 B2)
`IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2)
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: February 11, 2016
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PETER P. CHEN, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`February 11, 2016, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
`DANIEL ZEILBERGER, ESQ.
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875-15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LAWRENCE EDELMAN, ESQ.
`The Law Offices of Lawrence Edelman
`130 San Aleso Avenue
`San Francisco, California 94127
`
`and
`
`BRUCE J. WECKER, ESQ.
`Hausfeld
`600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
`San Francisco, California 94111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Please be seated.
`Good afternoon, everyone. This is a consolidated
`hearing for four cases, IPR 2015-00219, IPR 2015-00222, both of
`which challenge U.S. patent number 8,065,352. The third case is
`IPR 2015-00226, which challenges patent number 7,499,946.
`And then, finally, IPR 2015-00228, which challenges U.S. patent
`number 7,092,957.
`Petitioner is CoreLogic, Inc. Patent Owner is Boundary
`Solutions, Inc. Each side has 75 minutes to argue. Petitioner has
`the ultimate burden of establishing unpatentability, so Petitioner
`will argue first. Petitioner also may address its motion to exclude
`in its opening argument. Patent Owner then will present its
`opposing argument, and then, finally, Petitioner may use any time
`it has reserved for rebuttal to respond to Patent Owner's
`argument.
`We may take a short break after either Petitioner's
`opening argument or Patent Owner's argument, depending on
`how much time has passed when we reach either one of those
`points.
`
`Judge Chen is joining us by video from our Silicon
`Valley office and won't have the benefit of the visual cues in the
`room. So, when you speak about an exhibit or a demonstrative,
`please begin by identifying it with specificity, including the
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`particular page or slide number. Also, please be sure to speak
`into the microphone to ensure that Judge Chen can hear you.
`Sometimes we have counsel that tend to wander, but it's
`important to speak into the microphone.
`Before we begin with your arguments, a brief
`housekeeping item, we have Petitioner's objections to Patent
`Owner's -- to some of Patent Owner's demonstratives. We won't
`spend time this afternoon discussing or ruling on any of the
`objections. As you know, the demonstratives are not evidence
`but instead are aids to facilitate the panel's understanding of the
`arguments presented by the parties at the hearing. We think the
`panel is capable of determining whether information in a
`demonstrative is improper, and we will not rely on any such
`information in our final written decisions, nor is there a jury
`present that might be confused by such information.
`Nevertheless, we remind the parties that, as set forth in the Trial
`Practice Guide, at oral argument, a party may rely only on
`evidence that has been submitted previously and may only
`present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted.
`Counsel, each of you, when you begin your argument,
`please identify yourself and the party you represent for the record.
`Petitioner, you may begin when ready.
`MR. WECKER: Your Honor, Bruce Wecker for the
`Patent Owner. We have a short response to the objections to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`slides which we're ready to file and we would seek permission to
`file that, if -- if it would be useful.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: We will address that later when
`I have had a chance to confer with the panel. Let's start the
`arguments for now.
`MR. WECKER: Thank you.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right, Petitioner, you may
`begin when ready. First, do you wish to reserve any rebuttal
`time?
`
`MR. PALYS: Yes, Your Honor. I'm shooting for 45
`minutes for rebuttal depending on how our initial arguments go.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Forty-five for rebuttal.
`MR. PALYS: Just another -- in response to the
`housekeeping note, Patent Owner's counsel provided us a copy of
`their response to the objections, and we'll just note that they're
`argumentative. So, we will leave it at that.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Thank you. We appreciate
`that. We will make a determination on what to do with that later.
`MR. PALYS: I understand.
`May it please the Board, my name is Joseph Palys, and I
`represent the Petitioner, CoreLogic, today in these proceedings.
`I'm joined with my colleagues Naveen Modi and Dan Zeilberger.
`Can we turn to slide 2, please. As the Board has already
`noted, there's four matters here. The 219 and 222 relates to the
`'352 patent; the '946 relates to the -- I'm sorry, the 226 matter
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`relates to the '946 patent; and the 228 matter relates to the '957
`patent.
`
`As you can see here on slide 2, there's a number of
`grounds that have been instituted by this Board, and we agree
`with the Board's decision to institute review based on the grounds
`you see here. You can see a common theme here. There's a lot of
`prior art that's common across several of the matters.
`Now, Patent Owner, through its responses, has raised a
`few arguments relating to each of these grounds, and so for
`purposes of today, we're going to address certain aspects of those
`arguments and then reserve, you know, the time to rebut as we
`deem accordingly. So, with that, as I mentioned, we will reserve
`roughly around 45 minutes.
`If you would turn to slide 3, please. Before addressing
`the specific issues with respect to these grounds, I want to spend
`just a few moments to go over the background of the alleged
`invention. The patents share a common specification, the '352,
`the '946, and the '957, and they are related to the same invention,
`and that is a GIS environment that uses database components to
`store parcel-related information, basically so you can retrieve it
`and display it for a user.
`Now, slide 3 shows Figure 1 of the '352 patent and it
`highlights some of the aspects of the alleged invention, and one
`of those aspects is the information that's stored in a server or
`database. You can see on the bottom of the slide what can
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`happen is you might get data that's going to be received, and the
`alleged invention will check to see if that's compliant with a
`particular standard. If it is, it gets uploaded and gets stored into
`the database, but if it isn't, it's made compliant, and then, again,
`it's uploaded and stored in the database. The point here is what's
`sitting in the database is information that's been made compliant
`or been received as compliant, it's all in uniform, standard format.
`Figure 1 also shows, you know, what do you use this
`information for, and that could be receiving a request for certain
`information that's in the database, and in response, you'd look for
`that information, pull it up, and you display it.
`If you could turn to slide 4, please. So, slide 4 shows an
`excerpt from one portion of the '352 patent, in particular, in
`column 4, lines 50 through 64, and it explains an example, that
`one of the requests could be you want to have a request for a
`street address for a particular parcel, and the patent explains,
`based on the state that's identified in the request or associated
`with the request, the process will access a folder including all the
`files for that state. It's going to locate that requested information,
`pull it up, and display it.
`Thus, at a very high level, what we're looking at here is
`the patents describe storing information in a database, in some
`uniform, common format, according to a standard, and then
`accessing that data locating it, pulling it up, and displaying it.
`But to accomplish these features, Your Honors, the patents in the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`alleged invention really just incorporate known, conventional
`database techniques and components.
`Turn to slide 5, please. Patent Owner's expert
`acknowledged that Patent Owner did not invent certain of these
`aspects. You can see here on slide 5, Patent Owner's expert
`agreed, Patent Owner didn't invent the use of databases in GIS
`systems; they didn't invent the use of directories, files, or tables to
`store information in these databases; they didn't invent the use of
`identifiers to identify the files that are stored or tables in these
`databases; and they didn't invent the concept of indexing which is
`used to locate information in a database in an efficient manner so
`you don't have to go through all these records, and it optimizes
`the search for information.
`If you would go to slide 6, please. And the patent itself
`actually describes additional conventional features that the Patent
`Owner did not invent. Slide 6 shows an excerpt from column 3,
`line 26, to column 4, line 16 of the '352 patent, and, Your Honors,
`the Patent Owner has acknowledged that this portion of the patent
`is in the prior art, and to be sure, we asked Patent Owner's expert
`during cross examination to confirm that, and he did.
`And what this excerpt really shows is that, as you can
`see from the top, parcel-level GIS technology was mature, it was
`known, and this type of technology was known to use databases
`to store information, including a nongraphical type of database
`that could be linked to a graphical database. It also explains that
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`-- the use of indexing so you can access particular information in
`the graphical database and to do so so you can receive requested
`parcel data and display it, including surrounding parcel
`information. This is all in this portion of the patent.
`And importantly, the patent acknowledges that in the
`prior art, the digital assemblage from parcel-level databases from
`all the sponsoring agencies is stored in a server system according
`to a standard protocol. That's in the last part of slide 6, looking at
`column 4, lines 8 through 16, roughly. So, what that's saying is
`that the idea of storing information in some uniform, standard
`protocol format, in a GIS environment, was known, was
`conventional.
`Can we turn to slide 7. So, I'm going to begin our
`discussion with respect to the 222 matter, which relates to the
`'352 patent.
`If we go to slide 8. As noted, we believe the Board was
`correct in instituting the -- in instituting the review of the claims
`of the '352 patent, and here are the grounds you see on slide 8.
`With respect to Harder and Du, this is prior art, Harder and Du,
`Harder, Du, and MacDonald, and Harder and Longley.
`Now, again, we are going to touch on certain issues that
`we believe that the Patent Owner has focused these proceedings
`on based on its responses, but before we get into that, just to
`touch on the claims, let's look at slide 9, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`Slide 9 shows one of the independent claims in the '352
`patent, it's claim 12, and slides 9 through 11 will show the
`independent claims. What's shown here, really, when you're
`looking at the claims, it boils down to receiving a request for
`parcel data. You're going to search a multijurisdictional database,
`using a jurisdictional identifier. The information in that database
`is normalized, and then you're going to transmit parcel data and
`display it.
`Go to slide 10, please. Claim 9 tracks the limitations
`largely of claim 12. There is a slight additional feature, which is
`having a jurisdictional identifier from an index.
`Go to slide 11, please. And claim 1, again, tracks
`largely the limitations that you'll find in claim 12, but it also
`includes these limitations related to service area directories.
`Slide 12, thank you. Now, I want to touch on claim
`construction a little bit, and we believe, again, that the Board was
`correct in its interpretations regarding claim construction in its
`decision for the '352 patent. Under the Board's constructions and
`under -- even under the Petitioner's proposed constructions in its
`petitions, we think the prior art reads on the claims of the '352
`patent.
`
`Now, Patent Owner has submitted its proposed
`constructions for certain terms, and in doing so, it raises several
`issues, but sometimes it actually introduces constructions that are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`more narrow here in these proceedings than what they proposed
`in District Court.
`For purposes of today, though, what we're going to do is
`we're going to wait to hear from Patent Owner regarding their
`positions on claim construction, and we will focus and rebut
`accordingly. Our papers address the issues, but there are a couple
`points I want to point out before moving on to the prior art issues.
`Can we go to slide 14, please. On slide 14, one of -- it
`identifies one of the issues, and that's the term "jurisdiction."
`You can see, just represented in the slide, in its papers, the Patent
`Owner didn't really formally propose a construction for this term,
`but how the Patent Owner and Patent Owner's expert has applied
`the meaning of this term with respect to the prior art we think is
`instructive. It implies a way that they're interpreting it.
`For example, in its responses, the Patent Owner has
`made an attempt to distinguish prior art based on the use of
`county, FIPS identifiers, and these county directories. Examples
`of these are in its response on page 2, discussing the reference for
`Du; page 15, discussing constructions of multijurisdictional
`databases and county jurisdictional databases; page 39, again,
`relating to Du; pages 45, 47, and 49 -- or 49 through 50, relate to
`the reference to Longley.
`You can turn to slide 15, please. And Patent Owner's
`expert even has a very limited interpretation of the term
`"jurisdiction" and in the context of the claims. We asked the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`expert, we say, well, what is your understanding, in the context of
`the claims, of jurisdiction? And he told us, it has to be -- first --
`it's two things. First, it has to be serviced by a public agency.
`Well, that's inconsistent with the patent specification, which notes
`that data sponsors, which provide the data for uploading into the
`database, they can be private. An example of that is in column 2,
`lines 49 through 54 of the patent.
`The second point here is that the Patent Owner has
`attached a condition to the term which requires basically a
`jurisdiction to invest money before it can be considered a
`jurisdiction in the context of the claims, and I think that last part
`is important. This is how he applies his understanding of the
`jurisdiction when he does his analysis for the patents, and the
`Patent Owner heavily relies on its expert.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Let's assume that we agree with
`you that "jurisdiction" is broader than "county" and doesn't
`require data that's received from a single agency. Can we move
`on to -- I don't know if you have other claim construction issues
`at this point. We would actually like you to get to your
`obviousness and anticipation cases rather than spending too much
`time on claim construction at this point.
`MR. PALYS: Sure. I actually was going to move on
`right past this. So, I hit a good point. Jurisdictional identifier, we
`can -- which is on slide 17, same issues, so we will just move on
`according to Her Honor's instruction.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`So, let's move to slide 26 and let's talk about the
`positions with Harder and Du. Go to slide 29. Again, the fact --
`we talked about claim 12, what it -- what it covers. The
`highlighted portions you see on slide 29 is really just visually
`showing you some of the issues that were raised by Patent Owner
`in its response, and that's where the focus is at.
`If we can go to slide 27. Now, we believe, based on the
`responses, there's four issues raised by Patent Owner, and as to
`the first issue, you see on slide 27, with respect to Harder, the
`Patent Owner's arguments really focus on Harder alone and do
`not consider the combination of Harder with Du, and for that
`reason should be rejected. And also, it relies on its unreasonable
`claim constructions, which we believe and I believe that the
`Board disagreed with as well.
`With respect to the second issue and the normalized
`data aspects of the claims, again, Patent Owner's arguments really
`focus in on their -- what we believe is an unreasonable
`interpretation of what the normalized data is, and we think that
`should be rejected, and we believe that the combination does
`teach the normalized data aspects.
`And as to Du, Patent Owner argues that Du doesn't
`disclose a multijurisdictional database, and it doesn't disclose a
`jurisdictional identifier, but we believe that Du does disclose
`these features.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`If we can turn to slide 31, please. Du describes storing
`data in a database that spans multiple jurisdictions, and there's an
`example here in Figure 3 and corresponding descriptions in the
`reference that support that. You can see that Du's arrangement is
`set up by a particular partitioning strategy.
`If you can turn to slide 32. And Du explains that the
`data that's stored in this particular partitioning strategy allows the
`information to be retrieved based on a cell ID. Well, what's a cell
`ID? If you go to slide 33, a cell ID is something that uniquely
`identifies a cell, and Du explains that a cell can be assigned
`according to jurisdictions, such as townships, political
`boundaries, et cetera, and it's associated with that partitioning
`strategy like we've seen on Figure 3.
`And importantly, also, as you can see here in the
`example from Du in column 9, is that the cell ID is an index. It's
`something that Du will use to refer to where the information is
`stored, to get the -- in one example, the parcel information for
`that cell.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Could you clarify something,
`
`please?
`
`MR. PALYS: Yes.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Is the cell ID -- is your
`argument, then, that the cell ID is the jurisdictional identifier or
`the index?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`MR. PALYS: It's -- it's both. It's a jurisdictional
`identifier because it identifies a jurisdiction, especially when the
`cells are arranged according to whatever jurisdiction it can be,
`nationally based, state-based, you know, municipality, et cetera,
`but Du explains, as you can see on the figure here, it's given a --
`in this example a number, 450. It's used as an index as well. So,
`it would be like in the -- in the database, that's where the
`information is stored, and you use an index to find that
`information so you can get to the parcel.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: So, is it -- the column in the
`database, for example, that they're showing there, is that -- is that
`the index? The claims require -- the claims that involve index,
`for example, claim 9, recites retrieving a jurisdictional identifier
`associated with a selected parcel from an index of a database.
`Could you explain how Du teaches that?
`MR. PALYS: Well, the -- Du explains that the -- the
`cell ID is a unique identifier and that the list is compared against
`this index. So, there's -- Du described, especially in the
`combination of Harder and in view of the obviousness positions,
`that there is an index, and it could be -- I think we've even
`explained that a lookup table or however you want to explain an
`index is something that was well known.
`And, in fact, I think even in column 1 of Du -- and I
`want to confirm this, Your Honor, so I am going to reach over
`and get my prior art reference -- that Du even explains that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`use of index tables and listings and things of that nature was
`known, and I'll point that out to you in a second.
`In column 1, roughly around column -- lines 50-plus,
`Du is explaining that, you know, the use of index tables and
`separate index tables were known, and that's the whole concept of
`indexing, is you have a separate way of -- you first access the
`index, just like you would in a book, if you will, if I want to find
`some particular information, I'd go there first, this list, where do I
`find that information? And then I'd go there. That's essentially
`what Du's using these cell IDs for.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: So, are you saying the index,
`then, is the list of cell IDs?
`MR. PALYS: Yes, there could be -- you know,
`however that list is going to be arranged, there's going to be some
`sort of way of being compared to that list so you can go and find
`the particular cell.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: All right. So, then, claim 9
`also requires using the jurisdictional identifier that you've gotten
`from the index to search a portion of the multijurisdictional
`database. Is your argument that Du teaches that explicitly?
`MR. PALYS: In combination with Harder and Du, you
`know, under the umbrella of obviousness, and as we point out in
`our papers, we do believe it's taught there. But the idea, like in
`that claim, is going to the portion of the database, is basically
`where is the data located? Let's go there and find what you're
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`looking for. And you can see here, if we're looking for a
`particular parcel, Du's going to find that. And you're going to use
`the cell ID to get to there first, and, in fact, Du mentions -- if you
`would go back to slide 32, Dan, please -- the idea on the bottom
`right, around column 9, 1 through 5, it's describing the benefits of
`its configuration, and it says, "...the number of records to retrieve
`in response to a browse is substantially reduced."
`And the point here is Patent Owner has made these
`arguments in its response that, A, we have a special indexing that
`reduces the number of -- the amount of information you have to
`search, but that's what indexing does. And as I noted, even Patent
`Owner's expert acknowledged that, that indexing is something
`that was well known, so --
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: So, then, in your obviousness
`analysis, what's the -- what's the portion of the database that's
`being identified?
`MR. PALYS: The portion of the database that's being
`identified could be where is that information, so if the cell ID is
`pointing you to, like, the 450 or however it's arranged in the
`configuration of the database, and keep in mind that Du says
`there's no restrictions -- and Patent Owner's expert acknowledged
`this -- no restrictions on how you can arrange the database in
`terms of the geographic extent, whether you want to represent
`certain types of geographic areas and what -- how much
`information you want to put in these tables or its database. But
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`what's happening is if it -- it will use the cell ID. Where is the
`information that's relevant? It will use the cell ID as an index to
`find that information, which could be a parcel in the particular
`long binary block.
`JUDGE MARSCHALL: If Du does so, are they
`searching the entire database or just that list of cell IDs in the
`table?
`
`MR. PALYS: Well, the index will point you to where
`in the database -- the portion, if you will, you know, here's 450,
`and that's the whole idea of indexing, so you don't have to go
`searching through the whole thing. And we have got to keep in
`mind, Your Honors, that especially in the context of at least
`Harder, right, because Harder teaches the idea of using indexing
`and parcel-level searching.
`When you look at this, in the combination of both the
`references, you're taking the -- these known concepts, basically,
`and applying indexing to find where in the database -- the portion
`of the database the information could be, and like in Harder, it
`goes, find that -- find that parcel and then display it.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: Is there a difference between
`finding the portion of the database and finding the parcel?
`MR. PALYS: To be honest with you, Your Honor,
`even in these proceedings, it -- they could be the same. I think if
`you look at the claims, you could actually view that and say, well,
`the -- where the parcel is is a portion of the database, right? But
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`it could also be what sometimes Patent Owner is pointing to in
`saying, look, we have a database arrangement that includes
`separate files or directories, and so we're pointing to that directory
`first to go find a parcel. But that's what indexing is doing and
`that's what Du is explaining.
`I mean, boiling down their alleged invention, when you
`look at the claims, and as we are pointing out in the claims,
`looking at -- reviewing in the context of what Patent Owner has
`argued, and even looking at the conventional technologies that
`they admit in their patents and what the Patent Owner has said,
`their alleged invention really boils down to I have a database, and
`maybe I'll separate it into different files, and maybe I'll give these
`files a name, and it just so happens their name wants to be
`something associated with a jurisdiction, even though we think
`they point out sometimes county FIPS numbers, and then use
`indexing, which was well known, to find that file and pull the
`data that's inside that file that you're looking for. I mean, that's
`what their alleged invention boils down to, and we think the prior
`art that's at issue in these proceedings definitely discloses that,
`and even in the context of what one of ordinary skill in the art
`would know at the time, based on their arguments and their
`patent -- and their Patent Owner statements.
`JUDGE PETTIGREW: So, then -- let me just follow
`up, then, because we're talking about more than one reference
`here. What's your best argument for why it would have been
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine, in this
`case, Harder and Du in a way that achieves the recited claims?
`You said there's no -- Du teaches essentially there are no
`restrictions on how you can organize this stuff. Why would a
`person of ordinary skill in the art have combined them in the way
`that is claimed in this case in the '352 patent and also the other
`patents?
`MR. PALYS: I don't want to torture what we have in
`our papers, I'll try to be consistent with what we have there, but
`speaking off the cuff here, what you're looking at is, again,
`Harder teaches a parcel-level searching system, okay, and it
`teaches -- you can have a database that stores information.
`There's a dispute whether that could be multiple jurisdictions or
`not, but let's just assume for the case, in the Cabarrus County
`example, that you have a database that spans one county, but the
`whole concept of using indexing to look for where the
`information that you're looking for is disclosed there, and, again,
`well known. When you're looking at Du, it describes in the same
`field, the same idea of doing GIS-based parcel-level searching
`and storing information. Both references disclose the general
`idea of databasing and how you can configure your information.
`And you mentioned about -- my comment on Du,
`saying there's no restriction. The point there is that there's no
`limit on -- I say that tongue in cheek, but there is no real
`restriction in terms of -- you know, if I want to name a file "Joe
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00219 (Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00222
`(Patent 8,065,352 B2); IPR2015-00226 (Patent 7,499,946 B2);
`IPR2015-00228 (Patent 7,092,957 B2)
`Palys File," I can name that. What they're saying is let's name it

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket