Filed on behalf of: CoreLogic, Inc.
`By:
`Joseph E. Palys
`
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15TH Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Facsimile: 202-551-1705
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
` naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`CORELOGIC, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,092,957
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL F. GOODCHILD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 224
`
`CORELOGIC EXHIBIT 1006
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications .................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 3
`III.
`IV. The ’957 Patent ............................................................................................... 5
`V.
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 6
`A.
`“jurisdiction” ........................................................................................ 7
`background of known gis’s, concepts, and processes .................................... 9
`VI.
`VII. The Prior Art Discloses All of the Claimed Features of the ’957 Patent ..... 15
`The Combination of Harder and Longley Discloses the Features
`A.
`of Claims 1-10 and 12-19 ................................................................... 15
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 15
`pre.) “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:” ............................................................................. 15
`“a. activating a computer terminal connected to a
`computer network;”.................................................................. 16
`“b. accessing an applications program for access to the
`data;” ........................................................................................ 17
`“c. accessing a data entry screen and entering a parcel
`attribute to call up the parcel selected;” ................................... 18
`“d. subsequently accessing a national parcel map
`database comprising multiple jurisdictional databases
`which have been normalized to a common data
`protocol;” ................................................................................. 24
`“e. searching a jurisdiction look up table associated with
`the national parcel map database, said look up table
`indexed for identification of the pertinent jurisdictional
`database, whereby a numerical jurisdictional identifier
`for the selected jurisdiction is located, and the identified
`jurisdictional database thereafter accessed; and,” ................... 31
`
`e)
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Page 2 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f)
`
`2.
`a)
`
`3.
`a)
`
`4.
`a)
`
`5.
`a)
`
`6.
`a)
`
`7.
`a)
`
`8.
`
`“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 the
`associated attribute data for the highlighted parcel
`displayed.” ................................................................................ 35
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 40
`“The method of claim 1 wherein the entered parcel
`attribute is the parcel address.” ................................................ 40
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 41
`“3. The method of claim 2 where the entered parcel
`attribute is defined by entering an address in data entry
`boxes, one for state, one for city, one for street number
`and one for street name.” ......................................................... 41
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 44
`“The method of claim 3 where the entered parcel
`attribute is defined by entering the address using a series
`of pull down menus.” ............................................................... 44
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 46
`“The method of claim 1 where the parcel is displayed to
`the center of the screen.” .......................................................... 46
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 46
`“The method of claim 1 in which the user can adjust the
`scale of the on screen view of the map to be displayed.” ........ 47
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 47
`“The method of claim 1 wherein the default scale of the
`map displayed is selected sufficient to fill the computer
`display screen with an area around the subject parcel four
`times the size of the subject parcel.” ........................................ 47
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 50
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a)
`
`9.
`a)
`
`“The method of claim 1 wherein the boundary of the map
`to be generated on screen is established by the end user
`when provided with a scale selection mode for setting the
`map scale.” ............................................................................... 50
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 51
`“The method of claim 1 whereby the user can highlight
`the data presented to link to a file containing additional
`parcel attribute data.” ............................................................... 51
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 53
`a)
`“The method of claim 1 where the user can highlight
`other displayed parcel boundary polygons on the
`displayed map, and query the database for information on
`the newly highlighted parcel.” ................................................. 53
`11. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 54
`a)
`“The method of claim 1 where the user can select an
`attribute other than the parcel address to ornate a map of
`all parcels having the selected attribute.” ................................ 55
`12. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 58
`a)
`“The method of claim 12 wherein the attribute can be
`selected from a list of one or more specialized fields,
`including but not limited to zoning, flood, earthquake,
`fire rating, year built, and environmental conditions.” ............ 58
`13. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 60
`a)
`“The method of claim 12 wherein the selected parcel
`attribute is a zip code.” ............................................................. 60
`14. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 61
`a)
`“The method of claim 1 where the displayed data
`includes a metadata record describing the quality of the
`data set displayed.” .................................................................. 62
`15. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 64
`a)
`“The method of claim 1 wherein the associated parcel
`attribute data is the attribute data of the supporting
`property tax record.” ................................................................ 64
`16. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 64
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`a)
`
`“The method of claim 1 in which accessed parcel
`attribute database of the identified jurisdiction is the
`parcel tax record database.” ..................................................... 65
`17. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 65
`a)
`“The method of claim 1 wherein the parcel attribute data
`which is linked to a non-graphic database is the parcel
`attribute data of the property tax record.” ................................ 65
`18. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 65
`a)
`“The method of claim 1 wherein the parcel polygon map
`displayed on screen crosses jurisdictional boundaries.” .......... 65
`The Combination of Harder, Longley, and Roy Discloses the
`Features of Claim 11 .......................................................................... 67
`1.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 67
`a)
`“The method of claim 10 where the user can highlight
`several parcel boundary polygons at once and query the
`database to generate a data table for the highlighted
`parcel boundary polygons.” ..................................................... 67
`The Combination of Kearney and ARC/INFO Discloses the
`Features of Claims 1-8 and 16-19 ...................................................... 69
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 69
`Claim 1 (pre.) ..................................................................................... 69
`a)
`Claim 1(a) ................................................................................ 70
`b)
`Claim 1(b) ................................................................................ 71
`c)
`Claim 1(c) ................................................................................ 72
`d)
`Claim 1(d) ................................................................................ 73
`e)
`Claim 1(e) ................................................................................ 79
`f)
`Claim 1(f) ................................................................................. 84
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 85
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 86
`4.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 86
`5.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 88
`6.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 88
`-iv-
`
`
`Page 5 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 89
`7.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 90
`8.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 90
`9.
`10. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 92
`11. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 92
`12. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 93
`VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 95
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`I, Michael F. Goodchild, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by CoreLogic, Inc. (“Petitioner”) as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957 (“the ’957
`
`patent”), which I understand is labeled as Ex. 1001 in this proceeding. I have been
`
`asked to consider whether certain references disclose or suggest the features recited
`
`in the claims of the ’957 patent. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my rate of $300 per hour for the time I
`
`spend on this matter, and no part of my compensation is dependent on the outcome
`
`of this proceeding or any other proceeding involving the ’957 patent or any of its
`
`related patents. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I received a B.A. from Cambridge University in Physics in 1965,
`3.
`
`received a PhD in Geography from McMaster University in 1969, and for more
`
`than 45 years, I have taught, worked, and researched in the fields of geographic
`
`information science, spatial analysis, and uncertainty in geographic data.
`
`4.
`
`I was an Assistant Professor (1969-1971), Associate Professor (1971-
`
`1979), and Professor (1979-1989) at the University of Western Ontario. While
`
`working at the University of Western Ontario, I also assumed the role of a
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`coordinator of graduate studies (1973, 1981-1982), and was the Chairman of the
`
`Department of Geography from 1982-1985.
`
`5.
`
`I was a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara from
`
`1989-2012. At the University of California, Santa Barbara, I was chair of the
`
`Department of Geography from 1998-2000, Director of the Center for Spatially
`
`Integrated Social Science from 1999-2012, Director of the Center for Spatial
`
`Studies from 2007-2012, and Jack and Laura Dangermond Professor of Geography
`
`from 2010-2012.
`
`6.
`
`Throughout my career, I have also been a visiting professor or scholar
`
`at the following universities: Birkbeck College, University of Iowa, CSIRO,
`
`Canberra, University of Auckland, University of California, Santa Barbara, and
`
`Birkbeck College, University of London. I was affiliated with the National Center
`
`for Geographic Information and Analysis from 1988-2012, and served as a Co-
`
`Director of the Center from 1988-1991, Director from 1991-1996, and chair of an
`
`executive committee for the Center from 1997-2012. I was also chair of the
`
`Mapping Science Committee for the National Research Council from 1997-1999.
`
`I served as Director of the Varenius Project from 1997-2001, and an Associate
`
`Director of the Alexandria Digital Library from 1994-2012. I am currently an
`
`Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`where I am also a Research Professor. I also have an affiliate appointment in the
`
`Department of Geography at the University of Washington.
`
`7.
`
`I have published extensively with more than 500 articles and over 15
`
`books in the field of geographic information science. For example, I am the co-
`
`author of the text book Longley, Paul A. et al., “Geographic Information Systems
`
`and Science,” May 2001, which I understand is labeled Exhibit 1005 in this
`
`proceeding. I served as editor of Geographical Analysis from 1987 to 1990, and
`
`editor of the Methods, Models, and Geographic Information Sciences section of the
`
`Annals of the Association of American Geographers from 2000 to 2006. I have
`
`also served on the editorial boards of ten other journals and book series. I
`
`organized over 30 conferences and symposia generally related to geographic
`
`information science, including a number of conferences and symposia directed to
`
`the design or application of geographic information systems.
`
`8. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is Attachment A to this declaration.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`All of the opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`9.
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed the ’957 patent (Ex. 1001);
`
`the prosecution file history for the ’957 patent (Ex. 1002); C. Harder, “Serving
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`Maps on the Internet: Geographic Information on the World Wide Web,”
`
`published by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. on July 28, 1998
`
`(“Harder”) (Ex. 1003); P. Longley, “Geographic Information Systems and
`
`Science,” published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in May 2001 (“Longley”) (Ex.
`
`1015); U.S. Patent No. 5,966,135 to Roy et al. (“Roy”) (Ex. 1012), Kearney et al.,
`
`“Internet Access to Real Property Information,” Integrating Spatial Information
`
`Technologies for Tomorrow, GIS 1997 Conference Proceedings, February 17-20,
`
`1997 (“Kearney”)(Ex. 1021); “Understanding GIS, The ARC/INFO Method,”
`
`Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 1997 (“ARC/INFO”)(Ex. 1004),
`
`while drawing on my experience and knowledge of geographic information
`
`systems. I also considered other materials and prior art that is identified in this
`
`declaration.1
`
`10.
`
`I am the co-author of Longley (Ex. 1015). The copyright page of
`
`Longley has a date of 2001. To the best of my knowledge and that of my co-
`
`authors, this book was published at least as early as May 2001.
`
`11. My opinions have also been guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (described below) would have understood the
`
`
`1 Citations to non-patent publications are to the page numbers of the publication
`
`and citations to patent publications are to column:line number of the patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`claims of the ’957 patent at the time of the alleged invention, which I have been
`
`asked to initially assume is January 18, 2002. At the time of the alleged invention,
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art related to the technology of the ’957 patent
`
`would have had 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.
`
`IV. THE ’957 PATENT
`12. The ’957 patent relates to a computerized National Online Parcel-
`
`Level Map Data Portal (NPDP). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Title, Abstract, 1:17-26, 2:32-
`
`34, 7:1-10, 7:21-29. The ’957 patent acknowledges that the NPDP was known as a
`
`“repository of parcel data for use by all industry sectors” that allowed subscribers
`
`to obtain accurate, detailed, and current parcel-level map data, and was an
`
`electronic repository for parcel level maps and linked attribute data acquired from
`
`different public and/or private entities. Id., 1:17-28, 2:32-49. The acquired
`
`databases are loaded onto a server in folders, directories that can correspond to the
`
`state or county in which each data providing entity is located. Id., 4:1-27, 4:46-65,
`
`7:21-30, 7:55-64. According to the ’957 patent, the files from “each original
`
`jurisdiction graphic database” are normalized to a single universal spatial protocol
`
`in which parcel boundaries are identified according to industry standards. Id.,
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`1:49-53, 7:30-54. Each parcel is linked to a non-graphic database by the parcel’s
`
`Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) stored in the same directory. Id., 3:35-55, 7:55-
`
`57.
`
`13. The patent describes retrieving a parcel level map based on a
`
`requested address of a parcel. Id., 1:54-67, 2:54-56, 4:47-51. A lookup table (e.g.,
`
`a jurisdictional lookup table “JLT”) is searched to identify, for example, the
`
`jurisdiction in which the parcel is located. Id., 8:25-38. In one aspect, a directory
`
`is accessed from the JLT, and the non-graphic database stored in the county
`
`directory is searched for a record having a matching address value. Id., 1:57-67,
`
`3:51-58, 8:30-32, 9:23-30, 9:59-62. If the record is identified, the APN is used to
`
`access a graphic database containing the selected parcel and adjacent parcels
`
`within a prescribed search radius of the selected parcel. Id., 1:57-67, 3:51-58.
`
`These parcels may be displayed to form the parcel level map, with the selected
`
`parcel displayed as a highlighted polygon. Id., 1:57-67, 457-59. The parcel’s
`
`linked record can also be displayed. Id., 4:59-60.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that a claim subject to inter partes review receives the
`14.
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`15.
`
`I also understand that in these proceedings, any term that is not
`
`construed should be given its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction.
`
`16.
`
`I have followed these principles in my analysis. I discuss claim terms
`
`below and what I understand to be Petitioner’s construction of these terms. The
`
`remaining claim terms in the ’957 patent are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the broadest reasonable construction, which I apply in my analysis.
`
`A.
`17.
`
`“jurisdiction”
`
`I understand that Petitioner has proposed that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of this phrase is “a geographical area to which a common association
`
`or authority applies, such as a zip code, town, city, county, district, state, country,
`
`and public or private association or organizational areas, such as a home owners
`
`association, federal, state, county, city, or town areas.” I agree with this
`
`construction based on the claims, specification and file history of the ’957 patent,
`
`and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and I have applied this
`
`understanding in my analysis.
`
`18. The ’957 patent describes a jurisdiction in terms of different types of
`
`areas or associations when describing parcel requests, the database, and results to
`
`the request. For example, the specification relates a jurisdiction to a state, a
`
`county, a town, a city, a zip code, and even to an administrative area or a place
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`name. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:17-18, 30-34, 12:1-3 (explaining that “[t]o build the
`
`NPDP, a parcel-level digital database of urban jurisdictions must first be
`
`assembled . . . [m]ore than 70% of the major American metropolitan areas have so
`
`far completed digital parcel-level map databases”), 4:47-55 (“[a]ccording to the
`
`state entered, a folder is electronically accessed containing all spatial data files for
`
`that state including supporting tax record databases for each agency for which
`
`there is stored spatial data”), 5:3-9 (describing a request for a parcel in a certain zip
`
`code), 4:47-51 (a request includes “a street address including the city, state, street
`
`name and/or the number of the desired parcel”), 7:23-25 (“the center of the NPDP
`
`design is the placing of each jurisdictional database (county, city, town, township,
`
`administrative unit, place name, etc.)”), 5:55-58, 8:25-29 (describing a
`
`“jurisdictional lookup table” as “a single tabular file” that “makes it possible for
`
`the state and jurisdiction values stated in an address entry transaction to be used to
`
`determine the pertinent county in which it is located”), 8:32-33 (“the JLT is the
`
`source of the Metadata values assigned to the parcel map data of each jurisdiction
`
`within a county”), 7:55-60 (a jurisdictional directory containing countywide parcel
`
`map provide by a single taxing authority), 9:5-16 (explaining that a user “selects a
`
`state and jurisdiction” and given “[t]he state and city name selected is used to
`
`query the NPDP Jurisdiction Lookup Table (JLT) listing all jurisdictions by state,
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`county, and county FIPS number”), 9:23-24 (“[w]hen the user selects a desired
`
`jurisdiction (city, township, town, administrative area or other place name), . . .”).
`
`19. Given the patent’s descriptions regarding jurisdictions, and the
`
`understanding of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention for the ’957 patent, I agree that the construction offered by
`
`Petitioner is the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “jurisdiction.”
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF KNOWN GIS’S, CONCEPTS, AND PROCESSES
`20. The earliest GIS is widely acknowledged to have been the Canada
`
`Geographic Information System, developed for the Government of Canada through
`
`a contract to IBM in the mid-1960s. It was designed for the processing of data on
`
`the Canadian land resource, covering such topics as potential for agriculture,
`
`potential for forestry, and current use. Further technical developments followed in
`
`the 1970s, leading to the first commercially available GIS software.
`
`21. One of the first uses of GIS was to manage property boundaries,
`
`otherwise known as the cadaster, and the subject of the ‘957 patent. Cadastral
`
`mapping is noted as one of the earliest uses of computers for mapping in the first
`
`GIS textbook, Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources
`
`Assessment, authored by Peter A. Burrough and published in 1986. Cadastral
`
`applications are also discussed in the state-of-the-art review Geographical
`
`Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management and Applications, co-
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`edited by Paul A. Longley, myself, David Maguire, and David Rhind, and
`
`published in 1999 (the “GIS Treatise”) (Ex. 1008). They are also discussed in the
`
`first edition of the textbook Geographic Information Systems and Science, co-
`
`authored by Longley, myself, Maguire, and Rhind, and published in 2001 (Ex.
`
`1015, “Longley”). Numerous other papers, books, and reports describe cadastral
`
`mapping applications of GIS prior to the filing date of the ’957 patent. See e.g., I.
`
`Williamson, “The Australian Cadastral System,” published in 1994 (Ex. 1009)
`
`(describing the Australian cadastral system); P.J.M Oosterom, “Spatial data
`
`management on a very large cadastral database,” published by Elsevier Science
`
`Ltd., in 2001 (Ex. 1010) (describing the Netherlands digital cadastral system); W.J.
`
`Hesse, “A Review of Digital Cadastral Data Bases in Australia and New Zealand,”
`
`published by The Australian Surveyor in December 1990 (Ex. 1011) (describing
`
`digital cadastral databases (DCDBs) for Australia and New Zealand); D. Abel et
`
`al., “An Exploration of GIS Architectures of Internet Environments,” published by
`
`Elsevier Science, Ltd. in 1998 (Ex. 1013); A. Nairn, “Australia’s Developing GIS
`
`Infrastructure Achievements and Challenges from a Federal Perspective,”
`
`published at the 5th Annual International Seminar on GIS on September 28-29th,
`
`2000 (Ex. 1014), and Kearney et al., “Internet Access to Real Property
`
`Information,” Integrating Spatial Information Technologies for Tomorrow, GIS
`
`1997 Conference Proceedings, February 17-20, 1997 (“Kearney”)(Ex. 1021).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`22. GIS databases are often large, requiring special techniques to speed up
`
`such operations as search and retrieval. It is common practice to use specialized
`
`indexes, such as the quad-tree or R-tree, for this purpose. Chapter 27 of the GIS
`
`Treatise (Ex. 1008) provides a complete review of the state of the art in indexing in
`
`1999; a less detailed review forms Section 11.7.2 of Longley (Ex. 1015). Pages
`
`89-91 of the Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems by M. DeMers,
`
`published in 1997 (“DeMers”) (Ex. 1005) also provides disclosure of indexes.
`
`ARC/INFO (Ex. 1004), also provides descriptions of indexing for tiled layers of
`
`geographic areas including parcels and regions, such as states, counties, and the
`
`like. See e.g., Ex. 1004, 1-2 to 1-8, 7-7, Glossary-22, 23, 28.
`
`23. Since the early 1980s, it has been standard practice to base GIS
`
`software on the principles of relational database management, and to incorporate a
`
`commercial relational database management system (RDBMS) in a GIS’s software
`
`architecture. Such RDBMSs included Oracle, IBM’s DB2, and Informix. Henco’s
`
`INFO was popular in the 1980s as the RDBMS underpinning ESRI’s ARC/INFO
`
`software product.
`
`24. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention for
`
`the ’957 patent would have understood that an RDBMS organizes data into tables.
`
`In a cadastral application a key table would include the records of each individual
`
`parcel, each record forming a row of the table. The attributes of the parcels would
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`
`be organized into the columns of the table, and might include the ID of the parcel,
`
`its street address, its jurisdiction (e.g., county), the name of the owner, and its
`
`assessed value. One skilled in the art would understand that the records might be
`
`partitioned into separate tables for each county, ZIP code, state, or any other
`
`geographic subdivision, or merged into a single table while maintaining the county
`
`ID as an attribute. Examples of table and similar relational database structures are
`
`provided in Longley (Ex. 1015, 226-31), DeMers (Ex. 1005, 91-97), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,249,072 issued to Nearhood et al. (Ex. 1017, see e.g., 6:50-56), Du (Ex.
`
`1018, see e.g., 2:12-40, 9:33-45), A. MacDonald, “Building a Geodatabase,”
`
`published by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. in 1999 (Ex. 1020,
`
`51-57, 98), ARC/INFO (Ex. 1004, see generally), and Kearney (Ex. 1021, 575-78).
`
`25. An RDBMS employed in this way would have made it easy for a user
`
`to search for, query, and retrieve parcels, based on any combination of attributes.
`
`It was common at that time to use SQL (“standard (or structured) query language”)
`
`for such purposes. The speed of retrieval can be enhanced by the use of indexes,
`
`as already described. Longley discloses some SQL aspects of GIS databases. Ex.
`
`1015, 231-32.
`
`26. Geographic partitioning of a large database (commonly described as
`
`“tiling”) was also well known in the art at the time of the alleged invention for the
`
`’957 patent. In the early days of GIS the large volume of many databases, coupled
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 224
`
`

`
`
`
` Declaration of Michael F. Goodchild
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957
`
`with the weak computational power then available, led to widespread use of tiling.
`
`Map sheet boundaries were often used as a basis for tiling, the records for each
`
`map sheet being stored separately; counties, states, ZIP codes, and countries could
`
`also be used. Tiling is discussed in DeMers (E. 1005, p. 157) and in ARC/INFO
`
`(Ex. 1004, tiling is introduced on pp. 7-6 and then used throughout Lesson 7, and
`
`Glossary-28).
`
`27. Section 2.3.2 of Longley describes an on-line application of GIS for
`
`the assessment of local property tax. Ex. 1015, 33-35. Figure 2.8 uses the
`
`example of Lucas County, Ohio, and its tax assessment GIS. The user is able to
`
`retrieve a parcel based on its ID, the name of the owner, its street address, or its
`
`geographic location defined by latitude and longitude; display the parcel and
`
`surrounding parcels on the screen; and retrieve numerous attributes of the parcel
`
`including a photograph of the property. Id., 36. Harder provides a discussion and
`
`illustration of the cadastral system of Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Ex. 1003,
`
`21-22. Kearney describes the online parcel databases of the New Brunswick
`
`Province of Canada, which spanned multiple jurisdictions, such as the towns and
`
`cities o