Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`Entered: May 1, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRULIA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZILLOW, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`Entered: May 1, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRULIA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZILLOW, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Trulia, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”) requesting a review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,674 (Ex. 1001, “the ’674 patent”) under the
`
`transitional program for covered business method patents. Paper 3. The
`
`Petition includes a Motion for Joinder under 37 C.F.R. § 42.222 (Paper 4;
`
`“Motion”). Zillow, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) has waived the opportunity to file
`
`a preliminary response. Paper 7. The Board has jurisdiction under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324.1
`
`The standard for instituting a covered business method patent review
`
`is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize a post-grant
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if
`such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is
`more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition is unpatentable.
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 2, 5, 15-25, and 40 of
`
`the ’674 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. We determine that the
`
`information presented in the Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than
`
`not that claims 2, 5, 15-24, and 40 are unpatentable. We determine also that
`
`the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that it is more
`
`likely than not that claim 25 is unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324,
`
`
`
`1 See section 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
`112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011) (“AIA”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`we authorize a covered business method patent review to be instituted as to
`
`claims 2, 5, 15-24, and 40 of the ’674 patent.
`
`A.
`
`The ’674 Patent
`
`The ’674 patent states:
`
`[The invention] is directed to the field of electronic commerce
`techniques, and, more particularly, to the field of electronic
`commerce techniques related to real estate.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:9-12. 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 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.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Petitioner identifies the following related district court proceeding
`
`involving the ’674 patent: Zillow, Inc. v. Trulia, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-
`
`01549-JLR (W.D. Wash.). Pet. 63. Petitioner identifies also the following
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board involving the
`
`’674 patent: IPR2013-00034. Pet. 63. Petitioner identifies further the
`
`following covered business method patent review before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board involving the ’674 patent: CBM2013-00056. Pet. 63.
`
`Petitioner requests joinder of this proceeding with the proceeding in
`
`CBM2013-00056. Motion 2.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 2 and 15 are the only independent claims challenged, and read
`
`as follows:
`
`A computer readable medium for storing contents
`2.
`that causes a 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
`displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the
`distinguished property that is based on the adjustment of the
`obtained user input.
`
`15. A method in a computing system for refining an
`automatic valuation of a distinguished home based upon input
`from a user knowledgeable about the distinguished home,
`comprising:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`obtaining user input adjusting at least one aspect of
`information about the distinguished home used in the automatic
`valuation of the distinguished home;
`automatically determining a refined valuation of the
`distinguished home that is based on the adjustment of the
`obtained user input; and
`presenting the refined valuation of the distinguished
`home.
`
`D.
`
`The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth Petitioner’s
`
`contentions of unpatentability of claims 2, 5, 15-25, and 40 of the
`
`’674 patent based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 10-62):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Foster2
`Weiss3 or Foster,
`Keyes4, and Calhoun5
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`2, 5, 15-18, 25, and 40
`
`§ 103
`
`19-24
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0073508, published
`Apr. 15, 2004 (Ex. 1013) (“Foster”).
`3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0035520, published
`Mar. 21, 2002 (Ex. 1005) (“Weiss”).
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2001/0044766, published
`Nov. 22, 2001 (Ex. 1014) (“Keyes”).
`5 Charles A. Calhoun, Property Valuation Methods and Data in the United
`States, 16 HOUSING FINANCE INTERNAT’L J. 12 (2001) (Ex. 1008)
`(“Calhoun”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Lamont6
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`2, 5, 15-18
`
`Lamont and Foster
`
`§ 103
`
`2, 5, 15-18, 20, 25,
`and 40
`
`Lamont, Foster, Keyes,
`and Calhoun
`
`§ 103
`
`19, 21-24
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability to
`
`determine whether Petitioner has met the threshold standard, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a), for instituting review.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`As a step in our analysis for determining whether to institute a review,
`
`we determine the meaning of the claims for purposes of this Decision. In a
`
`covered business method patent review, a claim in an unexpired patent shall
`
`be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`
`
`
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0046099, published Mar. 6, 2003
`(Ex. 1015) (“Lamont”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must
`
`be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`
`description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
`
`embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We
`
`construe the terms below in accordance with these principles.
`
`“valuation”
`
`Independent claim 2 recites “displaying to the owner a refined
`
`valuation of the distinguished property that is based on the adjustment of the
`
`obtained user input.” Independent claim 15 recites “automatically
`
`determining a refined valuation of the distinguished home that is based on
`
`the adjustment of the obtained user input.” Neither party provides a
`
`proposed construction of “valuation,” and the Specification does not provide
`
`a definition of “valuation.” Random House Dictionary defines “valuation”
`
`as “an estimated value or worth.” Valuation, DICTIONARY.COM,
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valuation (last visited January 02,
`
`2014). Random House Dictionary defines “value” as “monetary or material
`
`worth, as in commerce or trade: This piece of land has greatly increased in
`
`value.” Value, DICTIONARY.COM,
`
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value (last visited January 02, 2014)
`
`(emphasis original). We construe “valuation” as “an estimated monetary or
`
`material worth.” The disclosure of the ’674 patent is consistent with this
`
`construction, as the ’674 patent exclusively refers to “valuation” in monetary
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`terms, such as comparing a “valuation” to a “selling price.” Ex. 1001, 9:45-
`
`48; 10:46-51; 11:10-13, 34-38; 12:39-60; 13:37-39; 14:8-11, 31-36.
`
`B.
`
`Standing
`
`Section 18 of the AIA provides for the creation of a transitional
`
`program for reviewing covered business method patents. Section 18 limits
`
`reviews to persons or their privies who have been sued or charged with
`
`infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include
`
`patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see
`
`also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.301, 42.302. The parties disagree as to whether the
`
`’674 patent is a covered business method patent under section 18(d)(1) of
`
`the AIA and 37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
`
`1.
`
`Financial Product or Service
`
`Our inquiry is controlled by whether at least one claim of the patent
`
`“claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing
`
`or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a
`
`financial product or service.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) (Definition of a covered
`
`business method patent). Petitioner asserts that the ’674 patent is a covered
`
`business method patent, because the claimed subject matter is directed to
`
`“real estate valuations,” which are financial in nature. Pet. 6-7. We agree.
`
`We determine that the subject matter of claim 20 meets the definition
`
`of a covered business method patent. Specifically, claim 20 depends from
`
`independent claim 15, which recites “automatically determining a refined
`
`valuation of the distinguished home that is based on the adjustment of the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`obtained user input.” As set forth above, we construe “valuation” as “an
`
`estimated monetary or material worth,” which is financial in nature.
`
`Additionally, dependent claim 20 uses a geographically-specific home
`
`valuation model to determine automatically the refined valuation of
`
`independent claim 15, and recites “wherein the geographically-specific
`
`home valuation model is a linear regression model constructed from
`
`information about recent sales of homes near the distinguished home.”
`
`Thus, the valuation of independent claim 15 is related to “recent sales of
`
`homes,” which indicates further that at least one claim of the ’674 patent is
`
`financial in nature.
`
`With respect to Petitioner’s assertions concerning classification, a
`
`determination of whether a patent is a covered business method patent
`
`eligible for review is determined by application of 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301, not by the classification of the patent.
`
`2.
`
`Exclusion for Technological Inventions
`
`The definition of “covered business method patent” in Section 18 of
`
`the AIA expressly excludes patents for “technological inventions.” AIA
`
`§ 18(d)(1). To determine whether a patent is for a technological invention,
`
`we consider “whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a
`
`technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and
`
`solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.301(b). The following claim drafting techniques, for example, typically
`
`do not render a patent a “technological invention”:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
`computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
`software, memory, computer-readable
`storage medium,
`scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
`such as an ATM or point of sale device.
`
`(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
`accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
`is novel and non-obvious.
`
`(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
`expected, or predictable result of that combination.
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-64
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Independent claim 15 does recite technological features. However,
`
`the presence of a technological feature alone does not establish a
`
`technological invention. The considerations to find a technological
`
`invention are whether the alleged technical feature is novel and unobvious
`
`over the prior art and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). To that end, Petitioner asserts that the ’674 patent is
`
`not directed to a technological invention, because independent claim 15
`
`recites generically known technologies, such as computing systems and
`
`computer readable mediums, that are not novel or non-obvious. Pet. 7-8.
`
`We agree. Accordingly, no further analysis is necessary.
`
`C. Claims 2, 5, 15-18, 25, and 40 – Anticipated by Foster
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 2, 5, 15-18, 25, and 40 of the ’674 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Foster. Pet. 10-
`
`25. Claim 5 depends from independent claim 2, and claims 16-18, 25, and
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`40 all ultimately depend from independent claim 15. In support, Petitioner
`
`provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed
`
`by Foster.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Foster (Ex. 1013)
`
`Foster discloses valuing real property, including land and buildings,
`
`using the information and communication resources of an on-line computing
`
`environment. Ex. 1013 ¶ 1. Specifically, a user enters inputs and calculates
`
`a value for a real property via a valuation tool. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 22, 84. Inputs
`
`include capital expenses, such as tenant improvements, and information on a
`
`future sale of the real property. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 81, 83. Upon completing input
`
`of the information, the valuation tool can publish an asset valuation report.
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 83. The valuation tool can generate a variety of report formats,
`
`including cash flow projection and ratio analysis, IPV/IRR/asset validation,
`
`and proceeds from sale. Ex. 1013 ¶ 84. According to Foster, the user is
`
`given an option to modify an existing property valuation by revising inputs.
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 78.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 2, 5, 15-18, and 40
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence
`
`that claims 2, 5, 15-18, and 40 of the ’674 patent are, more likely than not,
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Foster. Pet. 10-25.
`
`For example, independent claim 15 recites “obtaining user input adjusting at
`
`least one aspect of information about the distinguished home used in the
`
`automatic valuation of the distinguished home.” Foster discloses revising
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`user inputs to modify an existing property valuation. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 22, 78.
`
`Independent claim 15 further recites “automatically determining a refined
`
`valuation of the distinguished home that is based on the adjustment of the
`
`obtained user input; and presenting the refined valuation of the distinguished
`
`home.” Foster discloses upon completing input of the information,
`
`publishing an asset valuation report. Ex. 1013 ¶ 84, Fig. 15h. We are
`
`persuaded similarly that it is more likely than not that Foster discloses every
`
`limitation of claims 2, 5, 16-18, and 40.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 25
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s assertions and supporting
`
`evidence that claim 25 is, more likely than not, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Foster. Pet. 24. Claim 25 recites “wherein the
`
`geographically-specific home valuation model is constrained to consider
`
`only home attributes available for alteration by the user.” Petitioner cites
`
`Foster for disclosing that a user can enter and edit certain inputs used in a
`
`valuation of real property. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 81, Fig. 15e).
`
`However, that a user can enter and edit certain types of information does not
`
`mean a valuation necessarily is based only on such information, as required
`
`by claim 25.
`
`4.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 2, 5,
`
`15-18, and 40 are anticipated by Foster.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`Petitioner has not shown that it is more likely than not that claim 25 is
`
`anticipated by Foster.
`
`D. Claims 19-24 – Obvious over Weiss or Foster, with Keyes and
`Calhoun
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 19-24 of the ’674 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weiss or Foster, Keyes, and
`
`Calhoun. Pet. 25-36. Claims 19-24 each depend ultimately from both
`
`independent claim 15 and dependent claim 18. Petitioner presents claim
`
`charts and supporting evidence by Dr. Steven R. Kursh (“Dr. Kursh”)
`
`(Ex. 1016) to explain how the combination of Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun
`
`renders obvious every limitation of claims 19-24. For example, Petitioner
`
`presents a claim chart identifying specific portions of one or more of Weiss
`
`or Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun that disclose or suggest every limitation of
`
`claims 19-24. Petitioner provides the following rationale to combine Weiss
`
`or Foster, with Keyes and Calhoun:
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`that Keyes and Calhoun disclosed methods similarly directed to
`real estate valuation, and would have viewed combining the
`known aspects of real estate valuation of Weiss or Foster as
`common sense application of known systems in a known
`manner with expected outcome. See Ex. 1016 at ¶ 56.
`
`Weiss further expressly provides motivation for the
`proposed combination.
` For example, Weiss specifically
`contemplates that, for generating and/or refining, automated
`property valuations in the system as described above, “other
`manners of representing this or similar information may be
`used” and that “any of a wide variety of predictive models
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`known in the mathematical arts may be used.” Ex. 1005 at
`¶ 52. Such “other manners,” and examples of such known
`predictive models for property valuation, are found in the
`relevant teachings of Keyes and Calhoun, as applied to claims
`19-24, which are exemplarily identified further herein. See
`Ex. 1016 at ¶ 57.
`
`Pet. 28-29 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 56-57). We are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`put forth sufficient evidence to support the aforementioned rationale to
`
`combine Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun.
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that claims
`
`19-24 would have been obvious over the combination of Foster, Keyes, and
`
`Calhoun.
`
`Alternatively, Petitioner asserts that claims 19-24 of the ’674 patent
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Weiss, Keyes, and
`
`Calhoun. Pet. 25-36. This ground is redundant in light of the grounds for
`
`which we institute review of the same claims.
`
`E. Claims 2, 5, and 15-18 – Anticipated by Lamont
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 2, 5, and 15-18 of the ’674 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lamont. Pet. 37-
`
`51. In support, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each
`
`claim limitation is disclosed by Lamont.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Lamont (Ex. 1015)
`
`Lamont discloses a computer-implemented method and computer
`
`program for providing a spatially-based valuation of property. Ex. 1015 ¶ 1.
`
`A portion of Figure 1 of Lamont is illustrated below:
`14
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a flow chart describing the steps of determining a
`property value estimate of unsold properties within a specified area.
`
`At step 14 of Figure 1, Lamont discloses opening or importing a database
`
`concerning subject properties. Ex. 1015 ¶ 95. Lamont then discloses
`
`allowing a user to edit outliers and anomalous data points imported from the
`
`database at steps 16 and 18. Ex. 1015 ¶ 98. After these edits are made,
`
`Lamont discloses calculating valuations for subject properties at step 26.
`
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 104. If the results do not appear reliable at step 30, the user can
`
`be returned to step 16 to make further edits. Ex. 1015 ¶ 108.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 2, 5, and 15-18
`
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence
`
`that claims 2, 5, and 15-18 of the ’674 patent are, more likely than not,
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lamont. Pet. 37-
`
`51. For example, independent claim 15 recites “obtaining user input
`
`adjusting at least one aspect of information about the distinguished home
`
`used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished home.” Lamont
`
`discloses that after edits are made, valuations for subject properties are
`
`calculated at step 26. Ex. 1015 ¶ 104. If the results do not appear reliable at
`
`step 30, the user can be returned to step 16 to make further edits. Ex. 1015
`
`¶ 108. Independent claim 15 further recites “automatically determining a
`
`refined valuation of the distinguished home that is based on the adjustment
`
`of the obtained user input; and presenting the refined valuation of the
`
`distinguished home.” Figure 1 of Lamont discloses that after the further
`
`edits are made, calculating valuations for subject properties at step 26.
`
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 104. We are persuaded similarly that Lamont discloses every
`
`limitation of claims 2, 5, and 15-18.
`
`3.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 2, 5,
`
`and 15-18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lamont.
`
`F. Claims 19 and 21-24 – Obvious over Lamont, Foster, Keyes, and
`Calhoun
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 19 and 21-24 of the ’674 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lamont, Foster, Keyes,
`
`and Calhoun. Pet. 56-62. Petitioner presents claim charts and supporting
`
`evidence by Dr. Kursh to explain how the combination of Lamont, Foster,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`Keyes, and Calhoun renders obvious every limitation of claims 19 and 21-
`
`24. For example, Petitioner presents a claim chart identifying what specific
`
`portions of one or more of Lamont, Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun discloses or
`
`suggests every limitation of claims 19 and 21-24. Petitioner references the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kursh, who provides the following rationale to combine
`
`Lamont, Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun:
`
`As previously shown, Lamont teaches each and every
`feature of claims 2, 5 and 15-18, and each feature of claims 20,
`25 and 40 are taught by Lamont and Foster. With regard to
`claims 19 and 21-24, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have had sufficient rationale or motivation to combine the
`teachings of Lamont and Foster with, e.g., the teachings of
`Keyes and Calhoun in the course of ordinary practice to meet
`the claimed limitations. For example, each of the cited
`references are similarly directed to real estate valuation
`techniques and systems.
` Combining teachings of those
`references would have been considered making use of known
`real estate valuation teachings or systems, in a common sense
`and known manner, to produce nothing beyond expected
`results.
`
`Ex. 1016 ¶ 69. We are persuaded that Petitioner has put forth sufficient
`
`evidence to support the aforementioned rationale to combine Lamont,
`
`Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun.
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that claims
`
`19 and 21-24 would have been obvious over the combination of Lamont,
`
`Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`G. Claims 2, 5, 15-18, 20, 25, and 40 – Obvious over Lamont and
`Foster
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 2, 5, 15-18, 20, 25, and 40 of the
`
`’674 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lamont
`
`and Foster. Pet. 51-56. For claims 2, 5, 15-18, 20, and 40, this ground is
`
`redundant in light of the grounds for which we institute review of the same
`
`claims.
`
`For claim 25, Petitioner does not cite Lamont as remedying the
`
`aforementioned deficiency of Foster with respect to this claim. Petitioner
`
`has not shown that it is more likely than not that claim 25 would have been
`
`obvious over Lamont and Foster.
`
`H. Joinder with Case CBM2013-00056
`
`Petitioner included a Motion for Joinder under 37 C.F.R. § 42.222
`
`(“Motion for Joinder”), requesting that this proceeding be joined with
`
`CBM2013-00056. The Motion for Joinder was filed within one month after
`
`institution of a trial in CBM2013-00056, as required by 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.222(b). Patent Owner has waived the filing of its Preliminary
`
`Response, and also indicates that it does not oppose the Motion for Joinder.
`
`Paper 7. The AIA permits joinder of like review proceedings. The statutory
`
`provision governing joinder of covered business method patent review
`
`proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 325(c), which provides:
`
`(c) JOINDER.–If more than 1 petition for a post-grant review
`under this chapter is properly filed against the same patent and
`the Director determines that more than 1 of these petitions
`warrants the institution of a post-grant review under section
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`324, the Director may consolidate such reviews into a single
`post-grant review.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) provides that “[w]here another matter involving the
`
`patent is before the Office, the Board may during the pendency of the inter
`
`partes review enter any appropriate order regarding the additional matter
`
`including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of
`
`any such matter.” The Board’s rules for AIA proceedings “shall be
`
`construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. at 48,758.
`
`Because all of the grounds on the basis of which we institute review
`
`are based on prior art the substance of which have been fully briefed by the
`
`parties in Case CBM2013-00056, and because Patent Owner does not
`
`oppose the proposed joinder, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`
`presented in the Petition establishes that it is more likely than not that
`
`claims 2, 5, 15-24, and 40 of the ’674 patent are unpatentable. We
`
`determine also that the information presented in the Petition does not
`
`establish that it is more likely than not that claim 25 of the ’674 patent is
`
`unpatentable. The Board has not made a final determination under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) with respect to the patentability of the claims 2, 5, 15-24,
`
`and 40 of the ’674 patent.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`IV.
`
`ORDER
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a covered business
`
`method patent review is hereby instituted as to claims 2, 5, 15-24, and 40 of
`
`the ’674 patent for the following grounds:
`
`A. Claims 2, 5, 15-18, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
`
`Foster;
`
`B. Claims 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Foster,
`
`Keyes, and Calhoun;
`
`C. Claims 2, 5, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
`
`Lamont; and
`
`D. Claims 19 and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Lamont, Foster, Keyes, and Calhoun.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in the Petition are
`
`denied for the reasons discussed above;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(d) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding is joined with Case
`
`CBM2013-00056;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any and all further filings in the joined
`
`proceedings shall be made only in Case CBM2013-00056, and the separate
`
`proceeding Case CBM2014-00115 is herein terminated under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.72; and
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in Case CBM2013-
`
`00056 shall be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in
`
`accordance with the attached example.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Rosato
`Jennifer Schmidt
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jschmidt@wsgr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven D. Lawrenz
`Ryan J. McBrayer
`slawrenz@perkinscoie.com
`rmcBrayer@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00115
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRULIA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZILLOW, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-000567
`Patent 7,970,674
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Case CBM2014-00115 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`23
`
`
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
