`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 50
`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 IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, PETER P. CHEN, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`CoreLogic, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition requesting an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,499,946 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ’946 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Boundary Solutions, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On May
`
`21, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review for the challenged claims on
`
`the grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 8 (“Dec. to
`
`Inst.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Corrected Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 25, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper
`
`37, “Pet. Reply”). Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 39
`
`(“Mot. Excl.”), Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude,
`
`Paper 43, and Petitioner filed a Reply in support of its Motion to Exclude,
`
`Paper 44. An oral hearing was held on February 11, 2016, consolidated with
`
`the hearings in IPR2015-00219, IPR2015-00222, and IPR2015-00228. The
`
`transcript of the consolidated hearing has been entered into the record.
`
`Paper 49 (“Tr.”). On February 26, 2016, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer of
`
`claims 13 and 16–18. See CoreLogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc., Case
`
`CBM 2016-00017, Ex. 2003.
`
`The Board has statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). In this
`
`Final Written Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.73, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`evidence that claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 19–21 of the ’946 patent are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’946 patent is involved in the district
`
`court case captioned Boundary Solutions, Inc. v. CoreLogic, Inc., No. 5:14-
`
`cv-00761 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 59. Patent Owner also has asserted related U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,065,352 (“the ’352 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`(“the ’957 patent”) in that proceeding. Pet. 59; Paper 6.
`
`We instituted inter partes reviews of the ’352 patent (IPR2015-00219,
`
`IPR2015-00222) and the ’957 patent (IPR2015-00228). Petitions for
`
`covered business method patent review of the ’957 patent, ’946 patent, and
`
`’352 patent are pending in Cases CBM2015-00016, CBM2015-00017, and
`
`CBM2015-00018, respectively.
`
`B. The ’946 Patent
`
`The subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’946 patent relates
`
`generally to a Geographic Information System (“GIS”) and a National
`
`Online Parcel-Level Map Data Portal referred to as a “NPDP.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Title, Abstract, 1:13–22. The ’946 patent states that “[p]arcel-level GIS is a
`
`mature technology” and adds that “[t]hough hundreds of local governments
`
`have finished digitizing their parcel maps, a single national parcel map
`
`source (portal) does not exist. The National Online Parcel-Level Map Data
`
`Portal (NPDP) remedies this problem by providing the first national
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`repository of parcel data for use by all industry sectors.” Id. at 3:18, 1:17–
`
`22. In particular, the ’946 patent describes an interactive online method for
`
`users to retrieve geographic parcel maps and related data:
`
`An end user, utilizing an assigned password, begins the NPDP
`process by logging on from a computer terminal to an intranet or
`internet start page of the NPDP, and enters the state, city, street
`and number of a desired address. The NPDP address database is
`searched for a matching tax record. If there is a match, the NPDP
`displays the road right-of-ways, all parcel boundaries within a
`select distance, the “exact” address location highlighted, the
`pertinent parcel polygon changing the color to a brighter or
`different color from surrounding parcels also displayed. In
`addition, a list of property record attributes such as owner, use
`code, assessed value and year constructed can be displayed for
`the selected parcel. Other displayed parcels can also be selected
`and their linked attributes viewed.
`
`Id. at 1:57–2:3. 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 1:52–56, 3:66–4:7, 8:1–12.
`
`Data from jurisdictions are normalized into a single standard format. Id. at
`
`1:37–40, 7:19–54.
`
`The ’946 patent describes retrieving a parcel-level map based on the
`
`address of a requested parcel. Id. at 1:57–60, 4:42–46. A jurisdictional
`
`lookup table is searched to identify, for example, the jurisdiction in which
`
`the requested parcel is located. Id. at 8:13–17. In particular:
`
`The Jurisdiction Lookup Table (JLT) 102 is a single tabular file,
`developed and maintained by NPDP service provider. The JLT
`makes it possible for the state and jurisdiction values stated in an
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`address entry transaction to be used to determine the pertinent
`county in which it is located. Hence, by the table also containing
`the county's FIPS number, the appropriate county directory is
`automatically accessed for data retrieval purposes. In addition,
`the JLT is the source of the Metadata values assigned to the
`parcel map data of each jurisdiction within a county. Each JLT
`record contains the following fields: state, jurisdiction, county
`name, county FIPS number, accuracy, publication date, percent
`complete, ortho scale, ortho resolution, and update frequency.
`
`
`
`Id. at 8:13–25. 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 3:36–
`
`54. The selected parcel and surrounding parcels may be displayed, with the
`
`selected parcel shown as a highlighted polygon. Id. at 3:54–55; 4:51–
`
`53. The parcel’s linked data (e.g., tax record) also may be displayed. Id. at
`
`4:53–54.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1–21 are the subject of the Petition, and claims 13 and 16–18
`
`have since been disclaimed by Patent Owner. Claims 1 and 20 are
`
`independent. Claim 1 is reproduced as follows.
`
`1. An interactive computer implemented method for retrieving
`geographic parcel boundary polygon maps and associated parcel attribute
`data linked to a non-graphic database, wherein the data is acquired
`electronically, comprising:
`
`
`a. activating a computer terminal;
`
`
`
`b. accessing an applications program for access to the data;
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. accessing a data entry screen and entering a parcel attribute to call
`up the parcel selected;
`
`d. subsequently accessing a multi-state parcel map database
`comprising multiple jurisdictional databases which have been
`normalized to a common data protocol;
`
`e. searching a jurisdiction look up table associated with the multi-state
`parcel map database, said look up table indexed for identification of
`the pertinent jurisdictional database, whereby a jurisdictional
`identifier for the selected jurisdiction is located, and the identified
`jurisdictional database thereafter accessed; and,
`
`f. thereafter displaying on screen a parcel boundary polygon map,
`along with surrounding parcel boundary polygons, the default scale of
`the displayed map selected to fill the computer display screen with
`parcel boundaries within a selected distance around the subject parcel,
`the selected parcel boundary polygon highlighted, defining both the
`location and boundary of the parcel, and associated attribute data for
`the highlighted parcel displayed.
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:57–16:14.
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`The following references were asserted in the instituted grounds.
`
`Reference
`
`Title
`
`Date
`
`Ex. No.
`
`July 28, 1998
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Harder
`
`“Serving Maps on the
`Internet: Geographic
`Information on the World
`Wide Web,” Environmental
`Systems Research Institute,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`Reference
`
`Title
`
`Longley
`
`Inc.
`
`“Geographic Information
`Systems and Science,” John
`Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
`
`Roy
`
`US 5,966,135
`
`Kearney
`
`ARC/INFO
`
`“Internet Access to Real
`Property Information,” in
`Integrating Spatial
`Information Technologies
`for Tomorrow, GIS 1997
`Conference Proceedings
`
`“Understanding GIS, The
`ARC/INFO Method,”
`Environmental Systems
`Research Institute, Inc.
`
`Date
`
`Ex. No.
`
`May 2001
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Oct. 12, 1999 (filed
`Oct. 30, 1996)
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Feb. 1997
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`1997
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`The challenges to patentability on which we instituted trial are as
`
`follows (not including claims 13 and 16–18, which were disclaimed by
`
`Patent Owner).
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Harder and Longley
`
`§ 103
`
`1–10, 12–21
`
`Harder, Longley, and Roy
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Kearney and ARC/INFO
`
`§ 103
`
`1–6, 20–21
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`890 (mem.) (2016). Claim terms generally are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. See 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 our Decision to Institute, we construed “jurisdictional identifier” to
`
`mean “a number or other name, code, or description 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
`
`’946 patent:
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This
`is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`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, 8:35–403 (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 6–7. 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.”
`
`Patent Owner also proposes a construction for “multi-state parcel map
`
`database comprising multiple jurisdictional databases which have been
`
`normalized to a common data protocol.” PO Resp. 8–17. Patent Owner’s
`
`proposal is over 60 words long, and reads, “a database covering more than
`
`one state and 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.
`
`
`1 According to the ’946 patent, the Federal Information Processing Standards
`(“FIPS”) number “is used nationally to numerically identify specific county
`jurisdictions.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`Patent Owner had in its Preliminary Response proposed a different
`
`construction (“the database of individual land parcels having been
`
`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. 16–18. 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.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`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).
`
`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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`D. Claims 1–10 and 12–21: Asserted Obviousness over Harder and
`Longley
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–10 and 12–21 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Harder and Longley. Pet. 12–47. In
`
`view of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 13 and 16–18, we analyze
`
`claims 1–10, 12, 14, 15, and 19–21. Claim 1 is independent. Relying on the
`
`testimony of Dr. Michael F. Goodchild, Petitioner explains how the
`
`references allegedly teach or suggest the claim limitations and sets forth a
`
`rationale for combining the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1006).
`
`Harder (Exhibit 1003)
`
`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
`
`delivering geographic information” online. Ex. 1003, Preface. Harder
`
`notes: “The convergence of geographic information systems (GIS) and the
`
`World Wide Web has changed mapmaking forever.” Id. at 1.2 Harder
`
`discloses that web-based geographic information systems were well-known
`
`at the time of the alleged invention of the ’946 patent. Id. at 3, 12–17, 19–
`
`25. Web-based GISs generally have a client/server architecture, where a
`
`server receives requests for parcel information from a client computer,
`
`searches a database for the selected parcel information, and returns the
`
`
`2 All citations herein are to page numbers in the original underlying
`references, rather than to the exhibit page numbers affixed by Petitioner.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`information to the client computer. Id. at 7, 8, 13, 111, 113. The database
`
`can be a relational database system. Id. at 13.
`
`Harder also describes applications that implement a web-based GIS,
`
`including a GIS application developed for a county in North Carolina to
`
`provide the public with access to the county’s land records database. Id. at
`
`19. A user can query the system for a parcel map by entering an address or
`
`parcel identification number of the desired parcel. Id. at 7, 21. Geographic
`
`and non-geographic data associated with the selected parcel are retrieved
`
`and transmitted to a client computer for display with the selected parcel
`
`highlighted. Id. at 21–22. For example, a parcel information table
`
`containing information about the selected parcel, such as parcel owner, tax
`
`value, and property value data can be displayed with the geographic map.
`
`Id. Harder describes an application that, using ARC/INFO GIS software,
`
`joins tables of tax records to parcel information, converts the data to
`
`shapefiles, and indexes key fields to speed up user-defined searches. Id. at
`
`24. Harder explains that the disclosed processes could be used to select data
`
`and control the “geographic area to be displayed (from statewide down to
`
`the town level).” Id. at 7.
`
`Longley (Ex. 1015)
`
`
`
`Longley is a book titled “Geographic Information Systems and
`
`Science.” Longley discloses features and technologies relating to GISs that
`
`search and retrieve parcel-level data from a database of parcel data that may
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`cover many jurisdictions. Ex. 1015, 2–5, 10–11, 13–14, 17–18, 28–31, 35–
`
`37, 80, 83–86, 164–172, 194–198, 226–244.
`
`Longley references “look up” operations (id. at 191), and describes
`
`known technologies and features regarding such systems, including methods
`
`of configuring and formatting data and storing it in different ways in a
`
`database, such as tables (id. at 226–29), linking the collections of data based
`
`on Federal Information Processing Standard (“FIPS”) codes or other types of
`
`jurisdictional identifiers (id. at 226–30), searching and accessing such data,
`
`such as through indexing (id. at 226, 237–38), and maintaining such data in
`
`common formats (id. at 226–31, 237–38). A user can request a property
`
`map based on property values, by querying for properties similarly valued
`
`within a selected distance range, with the selected properties displayed on
`
`the screen. Id. at 36.
`
`
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner provides explanations of how the subject matter of each of
`
`the challenged claims is taught or suggested by Harder or Longley. Pet. 12–
`
`47. For independent claim 1, Petitioner contends Harder teaches the recited
`
`limitations of activating a computer terminal (Pet. 13; Ex. 1003, 7–13, 21,
`
`106–113); accessing an applications program for access to parcel attribute
`
`data (Pet. 13–14; Ex. 1003, 7–13, 20–21, 106–113); and accessing a data
`
`entry screen and entering a parcel attribute (Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1003, 8, 13, 19–
`
`25, 113, 117).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`Petitioner also contends that Harder and Longley teach or suggest
`
`subsequently accessing a multi-state parcel map database comprising
`
`multiple jurisdictional databases which have been normalized to a common
`
`data protocol (Pet. 15–19; Ex. 1003, 7–8, 13, 21–22, 42, 48–51, 106; Ex.
`
`1015, 2–5, 10–11, 13–14, 17–18, 28–31, 35–37, 80, 83–86, 164–172, 194–
`
`198, 229–233).
`
`Petitioner further contends that Harder and Longley, once combined,
`
`teach or suggest searching a jurisdiction look up table associated with a
`
`multi-state parcel map database, where the look up table is indexed for
`
`identification of the pertinent jurisdictional database, whereby a
`
`jurisdictional identifier for the selected jurisdiction is located, and the
`
`identified jurisdictional database thereafter accessed. Pet. 19–22. In
`
`particular, Petitioner contends that Harder discloses an index for identifying
`
`a jurisdictional database, and that Longley describes characteristics of multi-
`
`state parcel databases, which may be configured with identifiers that link
`
`tables in the database to assist in searching for data. Pet. 19–21; Ex. 1003,
`
`24; Ex. 1015, 226–30. Petitioner contends Longley further discloses
`
`searching tables relating to databases of multiple jurisdictions, such as states
`
`and sub-regions comprising more than one state. Pet. 20; Ex. 1015, 229–32.
`
`The tables include keys, “which may include jurisdictional identifiers, such
`
`as a state ‘FIPS’ identifier.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1015, 229–30, Figs. 11.2 (a)-
`
`(c)).
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`Lastly, Petitioner contends Harder and Longley teach or suggest claim
`
`1’s limitation of displaying on screen a parcel map, along with surrounding
`
`parcel boundary polygons, the selected parcel highlighted and filling the
`
`screen. Pet. 22–26.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response resemble those in its
`
`Preliminary Response, which, as we noted in the Decision to Institute, focus
`
`on the separate disclosures of Harder and Longley. Dec. to Inst. 11.
`
`Nonobviousness, however, cannot be established by attacking references
`
`individually in isolation, when the asserted ground of unpatentability is
`
`based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
`
`(CCPA 1981).
`
`We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments in its
`
`Response are “often unclear” (Pet. Reply 8), but discern several arguments
`
`by Patent Owner asserting Harder and Longley do not teach or suggest the
`
`recited “multi-state parcel map database comprising multiple jurisdictional
`
`databases which have been normalized to a common data protocol,” or the
`
`recited searching of “a jurisdiction look up table associated with the multi-
`
`state parcel map database, said look up table indexed for identification of the
`
`pertinent jurisdictional database, whereby a jurisdictional identifier for the
`
`selected jurisdiction is located.” PO Resp. 17, 23–31.
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that Harder does not disclose databases
`
`that have been normalized to a common data protocol. PO Resp. 23–24.
`
`Petitioner cites the ’946 patent’s description of data being normalized into a
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`universal spatial protocol using SHP files (shapefiles) (Ex. 1001, 7:25–53),
`
`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. Petitioner also notes
`
`that Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledged that assembling databases
`
`according to a standard protocol was in the prior art. Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex.
`
`1034, 29:15–32:17, 32:18–40:22, 114:19–115:2. We agree with Petitioner
`
`and find that Harder teaches or suggests databases which have been
`
`normalized to a common data protocol.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues about the lack of disclosure of multiple
`
`jurisdictional databases. PO Resp. 24–27. 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 12–13; Ex. 1015, 229, Fig. 11.2. We agree with Petitioner and find
`
`that Harder and Longley teach or suggest multiple jurisdictional databases.
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues about the lack of disclosure of claim 1’s
`
`limitation of “searching a jurisdiction look up table associated with the
`
`multi-state parcel map database, said look up table indexed for identification
`
`of the pertinent jurisdictional database, whereby a jurisdictional identifier for
`
`the selected jurisdiction is located” (see PO Resp. 25–30). Petitioner
`
`concedes that Harder and Longley “disclose retrieving a jurisdictional
`
`identifier using an index, but do not expressly refer to an index as a look up
`
`table.” Pet. 22. Harder discloses that its system “indexes key fields,” Ex.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`1003, 24, and Longley describes indexes and tables, Ex. 1015, 226–231. In
`
`particular, Longley discloses a grid index, in which grid locations “are
`
`recorded in a list (the index),” and a “query to locate an object searches the
`
`indexed list first to find the object and then retrieves the object . . . for
`
`further analysis.” Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1015, 237, Fig. 11.8.
`
`There is additional evidence that Petitioner’s proposed combination of
`
`Harder and Longley teaches or suggests the recited look up table. First,
`
`Longley specifically references a “look-up operation.” Ex. 1015, 191. In
`
`addition, at the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel equated an index with a
`
`look up table, stating, “a lookup table serves the same purpose as an index. .
`
`. . I presume you can call a lookup table a kind of index. . . . I certainly
`
`understood when [Dr. Goodchild] said jurisdictional lookup table is a kind
`
`of index.” Tr. 83:9–11, 83:13–14. Patent Owner’s counsel also
`
`distinguished another of Petitioner’s references by stating, “ARC/INFO has
`
`a particular kind of lookup table . . . I don’t think that’s the kind of lookup
`
`table that we’re talking about here, which is more akin to an index.” Id.
`
`85:24–25, 86:8–9.
`
`Petitioner further explains why its proposed combination of Harder
`
`and Longley teaches or suggests the recited look up table:
`
`[O]ne skilled in the [art] would have found it obvious at the time
`of the alleged invention of the ’946 patent to have the index used
`in the combined system of Harder and Longley arranged as a
`look-up table to allow the system to locate the appropriate
`location where requested parcel information is stored in the
`multi-state database of the combined system. Ex. 1006
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`[Goodchild declaration], ¶ 44. Implementing an index as a look-
`up table would have been a predictable and common sense
`modification to the combined system that would have increased
`the efficiency of the searching functions disclosed by the
`combined system of Harder and Longley.
`
`Pet. 21–22. Based on the evidence and arguments set forth above, we find
`
`that the recited jurisdiction look up table is taught or suggested by the
`
`proposed combination of Harder and Longley.
`
`
`
`Lastly, Patent Owner argues that the references do not disclose the
`
`recited jurisdictional identifier because Longley’s FIPS identifier is used to
`
`join tables, “there is no disclosure of using a county FIPS code in connection
`
`with indexing,” and “no one before the patent had thought of using the
`
`county FIPS code . . . as a jurisdictional identifier.” PO Resp. 25, 27–29.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument, however, focuses on this teaching in Longley in
`
`isolation. Petitioner’s obviousness argument cites the FIPS identifier in
`
`Longley as an example of a jurisdictional identifier used as a key in database
`
`tables. See Pet. 20; Reply 16–17. Patent Owner acknowledges this,
`
`agreeing that the state FIPS code in Longley is used as a key for finding
`
`records. See PO Resp. 27. Petitioner then relies on that teaching in
`
`combination with Harder’s teaching that indexing key fields can speed up
`
`searches and Longley’s disclosure of the benefits of indexing geographic
`
`databases. See Pet. 21–22; Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003, 24; Ex. 1015, 237–38.
`
`In addition, as we explained in the Decision to Institute, our
`
`construction of “jurisdictional identifier” does not require a county FIPS
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`code, and we find that Longley’s FIPS code teaches or suggests the recited
`
`jurisdictional identifier. Paper 8, 13; Ex. 1015, 229–30, Fig. 11.2.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Patent Owner also argues, “there is no motivation to combine the two
`
`references.” PO Resp. 29. We disagree. The Petition cites to the Goodchild
`
`declaration and to KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
`
`explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Harder
`
`and Longley as to the limitations of claim 1:
`
`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:
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00226
`Patent 7,499,946 B2
`
`[O]ne skilled in the art would have realized that using an index
`in the combined system of Harder and Longley would have been
`a predictable and common sense modification to the system,
`which would have had the foreseeable result of improving the
`effectiveness of locating parcel data in the multi-state parcel
`database of the combined system of Harder and Longley. See
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 401, 417; Ex. 1006, ¶ 43. . . . Implementing an
`index as a look-up table would have been a predictable and
`common sense modification to the combined system that would
`have increased the efficiency of the searching functions disclosed
`by the combined system of Harder and Longley. Ex. 1006,
`¶¶ 40–44.
`
`
`Pet. 21–22. Petitioner’s Reply further cites to the Goodchild declaration and
`
`asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Harder’s system “in view
`
`of Harder’s other disclosures of GIS systems” and Longley’s “disclosure of
`
`ways in which multi-state databases comprising multiple jurisdictional
`
`databases may be efficiently accessed . . . . This is particularly so given that
`
`both Harder and Longley disclose features relating to GIS systems, database
`
`configurations, and ESRI systems.” Pet. Reply 12–13. Petitioner also relies
`
`on “the harmonies between Harder and Longley given that both disclose
`
`similar technologies and features, including those related to ESRI.” Pet.
`
`Reply 13.
`
`Finally, we note that Harder was published by ESRI, and Longley
`
`expressly acknowledged the contributions of ESRI to the