`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