Tria1s@uspto.goV
`571-272-7822
`
`’
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: April 2, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSTRATEGY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Patent of ZILLOW, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`TRULIA - EXHIBIT 1004
`
`0001
`
`TRULIA - EXHIBIT 1004
`
`0001
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`’
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: April 2, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSTRATEGY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Patent of ZILLOW, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`TRULIA - EXHIBIT 1004
`
`0001
`
`TRULIA - EXHIBIT 1004
`
`0001
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Background
`
`MicroStrategy, Inc. (“Microstrategy”) petitioned for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-40 of US Patent 7,970,674 (’674 Patent) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311 et seq. MicroStrategy filed a revised petition on November 13, 2012
`
`(“Pet”). The patent owner, Zillow, Inc. (“Zillow”), filed a preliminary response
`
`on February 15, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3l4(a) which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review
`to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information
`
`presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response
`filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.
`
`Summary of the Invention
`
`The ’674 Patent states (Ex. 1001, 129-12; emphasis added):
`
`is directed to the field of electronic commerce
`[The invention]
`techniques, and, more particularly, to the field of electronic commerce
`techniques related to real estate.
`
`As explained in the ’674 Patent, it is difficult to determine accurately the
`
`value of real estate properties. The most reliable method for valuing a home, if it
`
`recently was sold, is to regard its selling price as its value. (Ex. 1001, 1:25-26.)
`However, only a small percentage of homes are sold at any given time.
`(Ex. 1001 ,
`
`1:26-30.) Another widely used approach is professional appraisal. (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:33-34.) However, appraisals are subjective, and they “[are] expensive, can take
`
`days or weeks to complete, and may require physical access to the home by the
`
`appraiser.” (Ex. 1001, 1:37-44.) Moreover, designing automatic valuation systems
`
`2
`
`0002
`
`0002
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`that only consider information available from public databases may be inaccurate.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:45-51.) Accordingly, the ’674 Patent discloses an approach where
`
`valuing homes is responsive to owner input, allegedly resulting in a more accurate,
`
`inexpensive, and convenient valuation. (Ex, 1001, 1:52-56.)
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 2 and 15 are independent claims, of which claim 2 is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`A computer readable medium for storing contents that causes a
`2.
`computing system to perform a method for " procuring information
`about a distinguished property from its owner that is usable to refine
`an automatic valuation of the distinguished property,
`the method
`comprising:
`
`displaying at least a portion of information about the distinguished
`property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property;
`
`obtaining user input from the owner adjusting at least one aspect of
`information about the distinguished property used in the automatic
`valuation of the distinguished property; and I
`
`displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished
`property that is based on the adjustment of the obtained user input.
`
`Prior Art References Applied by Petitioner
`
`MicroStrategy challenges the patentability of claims 1-40 on the basis of the
`
`following prior art referenceszi
`
`US 5,857,174 (“Dugan”)
`
`Jan. 5, 1999
`
`US 2005/0154657 A1 (“Kim”)
`
`Jul. 14, 2005
`
`US 6,609,118 B1 (“Khedkar”)
`
`Aug. 19, 2003
`
`US 2004/0049440 A1 (“Shinoda”) Mar. 11, 2004
`
`US 6,877,015 B1 (“Kilgore”)
`
`Apr. 5, 2005
`
`US 6,401,070 B1 (“McManus”)
`
`Jun. 4, 2002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`0003
`
`0003
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`Intemal Revenue Service Publication 946, How to Depreciate Property
`
`(“IRS Pub. 946”)
`
`2004
`
`US 2002/00873 89 Al (“Sklarz”)
`
`Jul, 4, 2002
`
`US 5,414,621 (“Hough”)
`
`May 9, 1995
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`MicroStrategy contends the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-18, 25-27, 29-33, 35-37, 39, and 40 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dugan and
`
`Kim.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 2 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Dugan.
`
`.
`
`c.
`
`Claims 2 and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Hough.
`
`d.
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Dugan, Kim, and Khedkar.
`
`e.
`
`_ Claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Dugan, (Kim, and Shinoda.
`f.
`Claim 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over Dugan, Kim, and Kilgore.
`
`g.
`
`Claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Dugan, Kim, and McManus.
`
`h.
`Claims 21-24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Dugan, Kim, Kilgore, and McManus.
`
`i.
`
`Claims 28 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Dugan, Kim, and IRS Pub 946.
`
`0004
`
`0004
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`j.
`
`Claims 34 and 38 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Dugan, Kim, and Sklarz.
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A. Findings of F act
`
`The following findings of facts are supported by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`1. Dugan
`
`1.
`
`Dugan relates to a manual or computer-implemented method for
`
`appraising real estate. (Ex. 1003, 119-10.)
`
`2.
`
`Dugan discloses that a primary object of its invention is to provide a
`
`real estate appraisal that is highly efficient and trustworthy and can be relied upon
`
`by sellers, buyers, appraisers, banks, investors, and the like. (Ex. 1003, 4:31-34.)
`
`3.
`
`As shown below, Figure 3 of Dugan shows an exemplary appraisal
`
`process where, if the operator decides to appraise a subject property at step 32, the
`
`system will proceed in the manner of the flow chart in Figure 4. (Ex. 1003, 7:47-
`
`49.)
`
`0005
`
`0005
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`FIG. 3
`
`4.
`
`If the operator chooses to revise a record at step 36 of Figure 3, the
`
`method described in the flow chart of Figure 5 will be followed. (Ex. 1003, 7:50-
`
`52.)
`
`5.
`
`If the operator decides to appraise a subject property, the appraiser
`
`and prospective buyer of a property assign points based upon an Ideal Point
`
`System (IPS), which are based upon the desirability factors for each of five
`
`categories of elements. (Ex. 1003, 4265-523.)
`
`6.
`
`Once the IPS values are determined, the property subsequently may
`
`be used as a comparable property. (Ex. 1003, 5:5-6.)
`
`OOO6
`
`0006
`
`
`
`IPR20 13-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`7.
`
`The appraiser need only select a subject property and obtain the IPS
`
`values for the seller of the subject property. (Ex. 1003, 526-8.)
`
`8.
`
`The sales price of each comparable property then is adjusted based
`
`upon the relative difference between the total IPS value for the comparable
`
`properties and the total IPS values of the subject property. (Ex. 1003, 528-11.)
`
`9..
`
`The average adjusted sales price for all of the comparable properties
`
`then is used as the appraised value for the subject property. (Ex. 1003, 5:23-25.)
`
`10. Once the appraised value is determined for the subject property, the
`
`operator will have the option to perform another appraisal, or revise a previously
`
`performed appraisal record at step 36. (Ex. 1003, 8:50-60.)
`
`110. Such revising may include correcting incorrect information, or
`
`inputting a new set of IPS values. (Ex. 1003, 8:21-24.)
`
`12.
`
`The system of Dugan may be used independently, or in conjunction
`
`with other appraisal techniques. (Ex. 1003, 14:63-64.)
`
`2. Kim
`
`13. Kim discloses that by incorporating the subject characteristics of a
`
`given property, and the subjective characteristics of “comparable properties,” a
`
`more accurate Valuation for the subject property may be obtained.
`
`(Ex. 1004, 1] 7.)
`
`14. A user may request an estimated value of a property by adjusting the
`
`ranking of comparable properties, and then applying a weighting value method to
`
`the ranked comparable properties.
`
`(E_x. 1004, 11 93.)
`
`15. A user may enter weightings associated with the properties. (Ex.
`
`1004, Fig. 5, 11 47)
`
`16.
`
`Certain entered weightings can be saved as defaults. (Ex 1004, Fig.
`
`6.)
`
`0007
`
`0007
`
`
`
`H’R2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`15.
`
`The appraiser may add additional characteristics to the profile of the
`
`subject property data to improve the description of the property, and thereby '
`
`improve the odds of retrieving more similar reference properties. (Ex. 1004, 1] 36.)
`
`16. Kim discloses a user entering property conditions of interest, such as
`
`“kitchen updated”, “new furnace”, and others. (Ex. 1004, 1] 46.)‘
`
`17.
`
`Based on the entered property conditions, the appraiser valuation
`
`engine assigns condition points to those entered property conditions. (Ex. 1004,
`
`0055,59)
`
`18.
`
`The amount of condition points assigned by the appraiser evaluation
`
`1 engine is based on the estimated “cost to build/replace/renovate” the associated
`
`property condition. (Ex. 1004, 11 59.)
`
`19. Map 702 marks locations of comparable properties and the subject
`property. (Ex. 1004,w1l 50.)
`
`3. Sklarz
`
`20.
`
`Sklarz discloses taking the recent price per square foot and/or price
`
`per bedroom and multiplying by the respective living area values of the subject
`
`property to arrive at a quick estimate of home value. (Ex. 1010, 11 220.)
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In assessing the merit of MicroStrategy’s petition, we have construed the
`33 6‘
`
`claim terms “user knowledgeable about the distinguished home,
`
`owner of a
`
`home,” and “new geographically-specific home Valuation model,” in light of the
`
`specification of the ’674 Patent.
`
`. 0008
`
`0008
`
`
`
`IPR20 13-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`1. Princigles 01 Law .
`
`The Board construes a claim in an inter partes review using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.l00(b); see Oflice Patent Trial Practice Guides, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claims terms usually are given their ordinaly
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in the context of the underlying patent disclosure. Phillips v. A WY-I Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Indeed, the construction that stays true to
`
`the claim language and most naturally aligns with the inventor’s description is
`
`likely to be the correct construction. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per
`Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`2. “User Knowledgeable-about the Distinguished Home ”
`
`Zillow contends that “a user knowledgeable about the distinguished home”
`
`should be construed as “the owner or a person with equivalent knowledge to the
`
`owner.” (Prelim. Resp. 23-25.) However, that position is unpersuasive because
`
`(1) some owners may not be “knowledgeable about the distinguished home,” and
`
`(2) not all owners share the same level of knowledge about their respective homes.
`
`The knowledge of an owner varies from owner to owner and is incapable of
`
`serving as an objectively determinable level of knowledge.
`
`The Specification discloses that the “owner or another user” is the person
`who would use the “software facility for automatically determining a current value
`
`for a home or other property. (Ex. 1001, 2:57-59.) The Specification also
`
`discloses that “a wide variety of users may use the facility, including the owner, an
`
`agent or other person representing the owner, a prospective buyer, an agent or
`
`other person representing prospective buyer, or another third party.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`2:59, 64-67.) By using the terms “another third party,” the Specification
`
`OOO9
`
`0009
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`contemplates any person as a “user.” Accordingly, we construe a “user
`
`knowledgeable about the distinguished home” to be any person “knowledgeable
`
`about the distinguished home,” and is not limited to the owner of a home or
`
`someone with equivalent knowledge to the owner of a home.
`
`3. “Owner 01 a Home”
`
`Microstrategy set forth a claim construction of “owner of a home” as a
`“seller.” (Pet. 12, 37, 40-41.) The Specification does use “seller” and “owner”
`
`interchangeably, for example, by mentioning only one of “seller” and “owner”
`
`opposite “buyer.” (Ex. 1001, 1:21-22, 2:65-66; 4:6-7.) However, it is understood
`
`that not all home owners are necessarily selling their home. Accordingly, we
`
`construe “owner of a home” simply as what it says, i. e. , owner of a home, who
`
`may or may not be selling. If and when the owner is selling, then the owner is a
`
`seller. That is essentially no difierent from the position urged by petitioner,»but
`
`' only phrased more accurately.
`
`4. “New Geograghically-Sgecitzc Home Valuation Model”
`
`MicroStrategy does not set forth a specific claim construction of “new
`
`geographically-specific home valuation model.” (Pet. 32-33.) Neither does
`
`Zillow. (Prelim. Resp. 31-32.) Independent claim 30 recites both a
`
`“geographically-specific home valuation model” and a “new geographically-
`
`specific home valuation model.” We construe “new geographically-specific home
`
`valuation model” as a model different from another “geographically—specific home
`
`Valuation model.” Nothing narrower than that is required by the specification.
`
`10
`
`0010
`
`0010
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`C. 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 b Grounds of Un atentabili —Claims 15 and 17 as
`
`Anticipated by Dugan
`
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
`
`claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
`
`reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). MicroStrategy contends that claim 15 is unpatentable as
`
`,
`
`anticipated by Dugan. (Pet. 3, 38-39.) We have considered MicroStrategy’s
`
`arguments and supporting evidence. The arguments have merit.
`
`Zillow contends that Dugan does not disclose “obtaining user input adjusting
`
`at least one aspect of information about the distinguished home used in the
`automatic valuation of the distinguished property,” as recited in independent claim
`
`15. According to Zillow, Dugan only discloses modifying characteristics of a
`
`particular property to fix errors or change IPS value allocations, and not retaining
`
`or modifying a previously generated valuation. (Prelim. Resp. 12-15.) Zi1low’s
`
`argument is misplaced. The claimed feature as quoted above does not require
`
`retaining or modifying a previously generated valuation of the property. Rather, it
`
`refers to adjusting some aspect of the information used in the automatic valuation
`
`of the property. In that regard, Dugan discloses determining an appraised value of
`
`real estate (Ex. 1003, 5:23-25), and then providing the option of revising portions
`
`of an existing record (Ex. 1003, 8:50-60), such as incorrect information or IPS
`
`values (Ex. 1003, 8:21-24), which can result in modification of the previously
`
`appraised value. That disclosure satisfies the claim feature at issue.
`
`Zillow also contends that Dugan does not disclose “obtaining user input,”
`
`where the user is “knowledgeable about the distinguished home,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 15. (Prelim. Resp. 23-25.) We disagree. As set forth above,
`
`we construe “a user knowledgeable about the distinguished home” as any person
`
`11
`
`0011
`
`0011
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`“knowledgeable about the distinguished home.” Dugan discloses obtaining user
`
`input from a buyer and an appraiser. (Ex. 1003, 4:65-5:3.) Certain user input is
`
`said to fix incorrect information about a‘ property (Ex. 1003, 8:21-22), which would
`
`require knowledge of the distinguished home. Thus, Dugan satisfies the claim
`
`feature at issue.
`
`Claim 17 depends on claim 15. MicroStrategy contends that claim 17 is
`
`unpatentable for obviousness over Dugan and'Kim. (Pet. 3, 17.) MicroStrategy
`
`does not identify any difference between the subject matter of claim 17 and Dugan.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded that all the features of claim 17 are disclosed in
`
`Dugan.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Microstrategy would prevail on showing that claims 15 and 17 are
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by Dugan.
`
`D. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Grounds ofUnpatentabilig;—Claims 1-40 as
`Unpatentable‘ in whole or in part based on Dugan and Kim
`
`I. Princigles of Law
`
`A patent 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 the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR
`
`Int’! 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 skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-
`
`called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. ofKansas City, 383
`
`U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`12
`
`0012
`
`0012
`
`
`
`lPR20 13-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`2. Claim 15 as Ungatentable [or Obviousness over Dugan and Kim
`
`MicroStrategy contends that claim 15 is unpatentable for obviousness over
`
`Dugan and Kim (Pet. 3, 28-29). However, MicroStrategy has not identified any
`featureof claim 15 that is missing from Dugan. (Pet. 28-29.) Given that
`
`MicroStrategy also has contended that claim 15 is anticipated by Dugan under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102, the ground of obviousness over Dugan and Kim is denied as
`
`redundant.
`
`3. Claim 17 as Ungatentable [or Obviousness over Dugan and Kim
`
`MicroStrategy contends that claim 17 is unpatentable for obviousness over
`
`Dugan and Kim. (Pet. 3, 17.) However, in light of our treatment of claim 17 as
`
`anticipated by Dugan, the ground of obviousness of claim 17 over Dugan and Kim
`
`is denied as redundant.
`
`4. Claims 16, 26, 27, 29, 31-33, 35-37, 39, and 40 as Ungatentable [or
`Obviousness over Dugan and Kim
`
`MicroStrategy contends that claims 16, 26, 27, 29, 31-33, 35-37, 39, and 40
`are unpatentable for obviousness over Dugan and Kim. (Pet. 3, 29-31, 33-36.)
`
`Each of those claims depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 15,
`
`which MicroStrategy contends is anticipated by Dugan. According to
`
`MicroStrategy, because Dugan and Kim are ‘directed to similar appraisal
`
`techniques with similar goals, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary
`
`skill in the art to use one or more of Kim’s steps in Dugan’s system to arrive at the
`
`subject matter ofclaims 16, 26, 27, 29, 31-33, 35-37, 39, and 40. (Pet. 11-12.)
`
`Specifically, MicroStrategy notes that Dugan discloses that it is desirable to
`
`have appraisal methods that are trustworthy (Ex. 1003, 4:31-34), and that the
`
`appraisal systems in Dugan “may be used independent, or in conjunction, with
`
`13
`
`0013
`
`0013
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`other appraisal techniques.” (Ex. 1003, 14:63-64). Also according to
`
`Microstrategy, Kim discloses that a “more accurate valuation for the subject
`
`property” is desirable. (Ex. 1004, 1] 7.) MicroStrategy further notes that Dugan
`
`explicitly contemplates combining its appraisal method with other appraisal
`
`methods. (Ex. 1003, 14:63-64.) For those reasons, MicroStrategy states:
`
`[A]ll or a portion of step 34 of Dugan’s appraisal and record revision
`process illustrated in FIG. 3 could be replaced by one or more of steps
`1406-1418 of Kim’s revision and appraisal process illustrated in FIG.
`14, and all or a portion of step 38 of Dugan’s appraisal and record
`revision process illustrated in FIG. 3 could be replaced by one or more
`of steps 1404 and "1406 of Kim’s revision and appraisal process
`illustrated in FIG. 14.
`
`(Pet. 12:1-6; emphasis added.) We have considered MicroStrategy’s arguments
`
`and supporting evidence, and conclude that on this record, the arguments have
`
`merit.
`
`Zillow contends that MicroStrategy does not provide a sufficient rationale
`
`for combining Dugan and Kim. According to Zillow, Dugan’s disclosure that
`
`“[t]he system may be used independently, or in conjunction with other appraisal
`
`' techniques” is taken out of context, and that Dugan only contemplates its system’s
`
`being used in connection with certain specific forms, such as “Fannie Mae Forms
`
`2055, 2065 and 2075, Uniform Residential Appraisal Reports, Individual Condo
`
`’ Unit Appraisal Report, and/or Small Residential Income Property Appraisal
`
`Report,” and not with the particular appraisal methods of Kim. (Prelim. Resp. 25-
`
`26.) We disagree. By using the phrase “such as” following “[t]he system may be
`
`used independently, or in conjunction with other appraisal techniques” at column
`
`14, lines 63-67, the specific forms listed are only examples. Given that Dugan
`
`contemplates use of its disclosed process in conjunction with other appraisal
`
`14
`
`0014
`
`0014
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`techniques, and that Kim discloses another appraisal technique, we are persuaded
`
`by MicroStrategy’s argument and not by Zillow’s argument.
`
`9
`
`Zillow contends that MicroStrategy has not provided a sufiicient rationale
`
`for combining Dugan and Kim, because replacing certain steps of Dugan with
`
`certain steps of Kim is not a simple substitution, but would add new processing
`
`that would eviscerate the Dugan system. (Prelim. Resp. 26-27.) However, Dugan
`discloses that such a substitution or additional processing is desirable (Ex. 1003, -
`
`14:63-64), and that, similar to Dugan, Kim is directed to a property valuation
`
`system that takes into account weighting of comparable properties. (Ex. 1004, 1]
`
`7.) Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that substituting or adding steps of such a
`
`similar system as disclosed in Kim would eviscerate Dugan’s system.
`
`Moreover, the use of patents as references is not limited to what the
`
`patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are
`
`concerned, as they are a part of the literature and are relevant for all they contain.
`
`In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983'). In connection with the
`
`argument that substituting Kim’s steps into Dugan would eviscerate Dugan, we
`
`note further that a prior art reference must be considered for everything it teaches
`
`by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing
`
`and attempting to protect. E WP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898,
`
`907 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In an obviousness analysis, it is not the case that everything
`
`disclosed in Dugan must be preserved or unchanged when relying on Dugan’s
`
`disclosure.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that MicroStrategy would prevail on the ground that claims 16, 26, 27, 29, 31-33,
`
`35-37, 39, and 40 of the ’674 are unpatentable for obviousness over Dugan and
`
`Kim.
`
`15
`
`0015
`
`0015
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`5. Claims 2 5-10 and 13-14
`
`as Ungatentable [or Obviousness over Dugan and Kim
`
`MicroStrategy contends that claims 2, 5-10, and 13-14 are unpatentable over
`
`Dugan and Kim. (Pet. 3, 22-28.) Claims 5-10 and 13-14 each depend directly or
`
`indirectly on independent claim 2. The subject of sufiicient rationale to combine
`
`the teachings of Dugan and Kim already has been discussed above in the context of
`
`claims 16-17, 26, 27, 29, 31-33, 35-37, 39, and 40, and need not be repeated here.
`
`Zillow contends that Dugan does not disclose “obtaining user input [ ]
`
`adjusting at least one aspect of information about the distinguished property used
`
`in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property,” as recited in independent
`
`claim 2. As discussed above in our analysis of the same limitation of independent
`
`claim 15, Dugan discloses the claim feature.
`
`Zillow also contends that Dugan does not disclose “obtaining user input
`
`from the owner,” as recited in independent claim 2, because Dugan only discloses
`
`obtaining input from the buyer and the appraiser. (Prelim. Resp. 18-19, 21-23.)
`
`We disagree that Dugan only discloses obtaining input from the buyer and
`
`appraiser. Dugan discloses obtaining IPS Values from buyer, appraiser, and seller
`
`of the property. (Ex. 1003, 4:65 to 5:6-8.) It cannot be disputed reasonably that a
`
`seller possesses ownership interest in the property being sold, and thus Dugan’s
`
`disclosure of obtaining IPS values from a seller satisfies the claim feature at issue.
`
`Zillow additionally contends that Dugan does not disclose “obtaining user
`
`input from the owner. .
`
`. about the distinguished property,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 2. In that regard, Zillow argues that Dugan only discloses a
`
`buyer and an appraiser making adjustments to comparable properties so as to
`
`determine the appraised value of a subject property, while “the owner would have
`
`no interest in adjusting the Value of their own property for use as a comparable
`
`16
`
`0016
`
`0016
`
`
`
`IPR20 13-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`property.” (Prelim. Resp. 18-19, 21-23.) Zillow’s argument is misplaced, because
`Dugan discloses obtaining IPS values from the seller of the property (Ex. 1003,
`
`5:6-8), which satisfies the claim feature at issue. Note that a seller is understood as
`
`having an ownership interest in the property.
`
`When the above arguments are considered in combination, Zillow may be
`
`implying that, while Dugan discloses obtaining IPS values from the seller of the
`
`property, Dugan only discloses that the buyer and appraiser revise portions of an
`
`existing record (Ex. 1003, 8:50-60), such as incorrect information or IPS values
`
`(Ex. 1003, 8:21-24), which can result in modification of the previously appraised
`
`value. Thus, it is argued Dugan does not disclose “obtaining user input from the
`
`owner adjusting at least one aspect of information about the distinguished property
`
`used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property,” as recited in
`independent claim 2. However, Dugan and
`each suggest allowing the owner
`
`to revise portions of an existing record in place of the buyer and appraiser.
`
`Dugan discloses that “it is a primary object of the present invention to
`
`provide a real estate appraisal method that is highly efficient and trustworthy and
`
`can be relied upon by sellers, buyers, appraisers, bankers, investors and the like.”
`
`(Ex. 1003, 4:31-34.) Kim discloses that a “more accurate valuation for the subject
`
`property” is desirable. (Ex. 1004, ‘ll 7.) Accordingly, it would have been obvious
`
`to substitute a seller for the buyer and appraiser who inputs information in Dugan,
`
`because it would make the appraisal more accurate, for example, by allowing the
`
`seller to fix errors, and thus make the appraisal more trustworthy and reliable to all
`
`parties, especially the seller. Furthermore, it would allow the seller to obtain an
`
`appraised value for their property that properly accounts for their priorities via the
`
`inputted IPS values. And as the seller is an owner who is selling a home,
`
`17
`
`0017
`
`0017
`
`
`
`[PR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`modifying Dugan to allow the seller of Dugan to revise portions of an existing
`
`record in place of the buyer and appraiser would satisfy the claim feature at issue.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that MicroStrategy has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the ground that claims 2, 5-10, and 13-14
`ofthe ’674 patent are unpatentable for obviousness over Dugan and Kim.
`
`6. Claims 3 and 4 as Ungatentable [or Obviousness over
`Dugan, Kim, and Khedkar
`
`MicroStrategy contends that claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable for obviousness
`
`over Dugan, Kim, and Khedkar. (Pet. 3, 42-43.) We have considered
`
`MicroStrategy’s arguments and supporting evidence, but are unpersuaded in light
`
`of the opposing arguments presented by Zillow.
`
`Zillow contends that no combination of Dugan and Kim discloses
`
`“determining whether any of the altered home attributes is an attribute not present
`among home sales used to construct the geographically-specific home valuation
`
`model,” as recited in claim 3. According to Zillow, “the Petition merely states that
`
`[certain altered home attribute] might exist in some instances without showing that
`
`the references disclose actually determining that they exist and performing
`additional actions based on that determination.” (Prelim. Resp. 30-31.) We agree.
`
`.-
`
`Dugan and Kim each disclose gathering attributes about subject and
`
`comparable properties (Ex. 1003, 4:65-5:11; Ex. 1004, 1[ 7), and then determining
`
`an appraised value for the subject properties based on the gathered attributes. (Ex.
`
`1003, 5:23-25; Ex. 1004, 1] 7.) Microstrategy contends:
`
`in the
`[S]ome attributes of the subject property are not present
`comparable properties;
`Thus, when an attribute of the subject
`property is altered, the altered attribute may not be present in the
`comparable properties
`
`18
`
`0018
`
`0018
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`(Pet. 43:13-16; emphasis added.) However, MicroStrategy’s contention is
`misplaced. Claim 3 requires determining whether the attribute is not present.
`
`MicroStrategy has shown, at most, that the attribute itself% not be present, and
`
`not that a determination is made to detect its non-presence.
`
`Zillow contends that no combination of Dugan, Kim, and Khedkar as
`
`presented by MicroStrategy discloses “determining whether the refined valuation
`
`diverges from the automatic valuation by more than a threshold percentage,” as
`
`recited in claim 4. (Prelim. Resp. 30-31.) We agree.
`
`MicroStrategy cites Figure 3 of Dugan as disclosing automated property
`
`valuation, and combines that disclosure with Khedkar’s disclosure that “if given a
`
`property that is outside the price range... a warning will be issued to the user of the
`
`system.” (Ex. 1005, 5:42-44.) It appears to be MicroStrategy’s position that
`
`Dugan and Khedkar collectively teach the issuance of a warning if automated
`
`property evaluation yields a price that is outside of a price range. However, there
`
`are two problems with MicroStrategy’s position. First, detecting that a valuation is
`
`outside of a price range does not yield a percentage of anything, much less a
`
`threshold percentage. Secondly, detecting if a valuation is outside of a price range
`
`is not any comparison between a refined valuation and an automated valuation.
`
`MicroStrategy has not demonstrated that a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail on the alleged ground that claims 3 and 4 of the ’674 patent are
`
`unpatentable for obviousness over Dugan, Kim, and Khedkar.
`
`7. Claims 18 and 25 as Ungatentable zor.0bvi0usness over Dugan and Kim
`
`MicroStrategy contends that claims 18 and 25 are unpatentable for
`
`obviousness over Dugan and Kim. (Pet. 3, 29-30.) We have considered
`
`MicroStrategy’s arguments and supporting evidence, but are unpersuaded by
`
`MicroStrategy’s arguments in light of the opposing arguments presented by Zillow.
`
`19
`
`0019
`
`0019
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00034
`
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`In particular, MicroStrategy has failed to address how Dugan and Kim disclose or
`
`suggest these limitations of claim 18:
`
`includes
`wherein the adjustment of the obtained user input
`altering the home attributes indicated by an external data source to be
`possessed by the distinguished home, and
`
`wherein the determined refined valuation is based at least in
`
`part on applying the geographically-specific home valuation model to
`the altered attributes
`
`Claim 25 depends from claim 18.
`
`MicroStrategy has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail on the alleged ground that claims 18 and 25 of the ‘674 patent are
`
`unpatentable for obviousness over Dugan and Kim.
`
`8. Claim 30 as Ungatentable [or Obviousness over Dugan and Kim
`
`.MicroStrategy contends that claim 30 is unpatentable for obviousness over
`
`Dugan and Kim. (Pet. 3, 31-33.) We have considered MicroStrategy’s arguments
`
`and supporting evidence. On this record, the arguments have merit.
`
`Zillow contends that no combination of Dugan and Kim discloses
`
`“constructing a new geographically-specific home valuation model that
`
`emphasizes the significance of the identified sales” and “applying the constructed
`
`new geographically-specific home valuation model to attributes of the
`
`distinguished home to obtain a result,” as recited in claim 30. According to Zillow,
`
`Kim at most “discloses only a single model (i. e. , a weighted average) that is
`
`applied to all properties being valued,” and not “a new geographically specific
`
`model in response to an u
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
