[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
First case of argument is 16-2354 Boundary Solutions v. Correlogy.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Bruce Wecker on behalf of Pellant Boundary Solutions.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
This is an appeal from an Interparties review in which the two patents at issue were invalidated, the relevant claims.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
The issues are whether the two references that were used to establish obviousness had two limitations which... On page 28 of the red brief, core logic says that on appeal you're presenting a new claim construction argument that speaks to the creation of national

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
parcel map database requires a special normalization process and requires a national parcel boundary database to be used in searching for parcels through a jurisdictional lookup table.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
Where in the record did you raise those positions in front of the PCAP?

[00:01:12] Speaker 03:
Those are not positions that we're taking on this appeal.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
We're not raising any claims construction issues.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
There was some confusion in the opening brief.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
We addressed the issue of the normalization element.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
But it is purely to put in context the function of the jurisdictional lookup table, which is the only issue that we're raising on this appeal, which is that the... In its final decision, when the PTAB explained that Longley specifically references a lookup operation, it expressly recognized boundary solutions

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
candid admission that while there may be a difference in terminology, a lookup table serves the same purpose as an index.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
Why shouldn't we likewise treat that as an omission by your client regarding the lookup table?

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
If you read the argument in context, I was the attorney that did the argument, the statement about serving the same purpose

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
is that it is one of the purposes that a lookup table can be used for.

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
In this case, in this patent, it is used for additional purposes, including the arrangement of the entire database search protocol to engage in a two-stage search, wherein the lookup table is a jurisdictional lookup table to find a jurisdictional identifier

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
which then identifies a narrower geographic location, which in the preferred embodiment is a county, but in the claims is a jurisdictional database, which is then searched to find the selected parcel.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:03:11] Speaker 04:
On that second stage of the search, you attempt on page 37 of your opening phrase

[00:03:20] Speaker 04:
to draw a new distinction between the cells and long-lease disclosure of grid indexing and jurisdictional boundaries in the claim lookup table.

[00:03:31] Speaker 04:
And you say the second stage of the search, which likely would include a spatial search, is not specified in the claims.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
Where in the record did you raise that second stage argument in front of PTAM?

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
It's throughout the argument that the board, there were numerous references to the two-stage search.

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
I think there's a portion of our reply brief where we collect all of those references.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
OK, where is that place?

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
I'll let you do it on your response.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
You can just point it out.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
And in terms of that two-stage search as represented in the claims themselves, you see that the subpart E that is the primary focus of this appeal is searching on the jurisdictional lookup table that's indexed to find the pertinent jurisdictional database where the jurisdictional identifier for the selected jurisdiction is located.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
in the identified jurisdictional database thereafter access.

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
Then the next step, step F, is the completion of the entire search protocol, which allows for the display of the selected parcel and parcels of surrounding it.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
So that's why we say that there's no implementation steps of how that second stage occurs, but

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
playing from the structure of the claim that it involves taking the jurisdiction, as I say, in the preferred embodiment, a county, and finding the parcel within that.

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
And again, in the preferred embodiment, each county has already established through its tax assessor office a map that includes APNs that locate particular parcels by using the... We understand.

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
I don't want to confuse you.

[00:05:38] Speaker 04:
So I want you to look at page 37 of your blue brief when you come back up, because I'm talking about that specific argument that you raise on that page and that distinction that you try to make.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
And you can tell me where that is in the record.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
So that subpart E has two limitations that were

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
discussing as missing in harder and longly.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
The first is the basic structure of a jurisdiction lookup table.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
And the second is the role that that lookup table plays in the claim where it finds a jurisdictional identifier that then is passed to do the second stage of the search.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
With respect to all of this, both of those limitations

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
were addressed in the board's decisions over a course of less than two pages that span from page 17 to 19 in the decisions.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
That's appendix 17 to 19 with respect to the 946 patent.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
And you see that the analysis there

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
does not address any of boundary solutions arguments regarding distinctions between grid indexes and the index of the patent between an indexing and a jurisdiction lookup table.

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
None of those arguments are addressed here, which is part of the basis for us contending that this is an inadequate specification of the reasoning

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
for the board's decision that the prior art renders the patent obvious.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
And according to the Rendy and other cases, the board is required to lay out specifically its reasoning.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
Obviousness is sort of like the free speech concept of you know it when you see it,

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
It's very difficult to focus in on exactly what leads one to believe that an invention is obvious.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
Well, I guess in principle, I understand your point.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
But it seems to me, reading carefully the board's opinion, I mean, they take each argument, specifically on the appendix 17 and 18, which you referred to.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
They take each of your arguments, and they respond to it.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
quite specifically, presumably not necessarily to your satisfaction.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
But it seems to me, reading through the opinion, that they do identify the arguments you make, do cite the references, and do try to explain based on the references and what they understand to have been your concessions during the oral argument, that there is a response.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
As I said, you may have a disagreement as to whether or not it's adequate.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
But there is certainly a response to each of the arguments you made, right?

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
With due respect, such argument as we present the argument that the grid index, which is the closest index in Longley and Harder that comes to the two-stage search, we present the argument that it actually only portrays a one-stage search.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
But didn't they go on to say that

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
There was expert testimony that talked about how the index, the lookup table is a kind of index, and they addressed having different kinds of lookup tables and explained why it is that one ordinary scale in the art would understand that there could be a lookup table based on the teachings and the two references.

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
What I believe that those two pages devolved down to

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
is a statement that common sense will bridge that gap between jurisdiction lookup table.

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
Where is that?

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
That is in the third point, which is page 18 to 19.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
They have the lengthy quote about petitioner further explains that it's a combination of longly and harder teachers that are sick suggest the recited lookup table.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
And then if you look at that quote,

[00:10:24] Speaker 03:
its conclusory statements about why that is true with a single citation to Goodchild Declaration 44.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
If you look at paragraph 44 of Goodchild's declaration, which is the only paragraph in the whole declaration in which he addresses the recited jurisdiction lookup table, you will see, and that's at appendix

[00:10:54] Speaker 03:
for 17 that he doesn't provide any reasoning why one skilled in the art would automatically think of lookup table.

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
What about where he says it would have increased the efficiency of the searching functions disclosed by the combined system of Herder and Longley?

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
Well, all indexes do that.

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
And so our point is you can't, in a prior art reference, see a reference to index.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
and automatically think that here's how you structure this parcel database with a jurisdictional lookup table that first finds the jurisdiction and then finds the parcel.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
The idea of invention here is that the combination of the jurisdictional identifier, which in the preferred embodiment is the FIPS number, plus an APN, which is already in all of the

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
counties databases, those two pieces of information linked together give you a unique identifier for every parcel across the nation.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
So you can use that to create a searching mechanism to find selected parcels that there is nothing in a longly or harder that comes close to suggesting that kind of spark of invention.

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
Am I correct in recalling that there is maybe a CBM pending on this particular patent?

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
The board refused to institute those on the basis that there were no claims here that involved financial

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
Well, we're into your rebuttals, so why don't we hear from the other side of the room?

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
We've changed the rebuttal time.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Stephen Kinnaird for CoreLogic Inc.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
The board had substantial evidence to find that the two boundary solution patents

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
were obvious over the harder and longer references.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Indeed, the claimed invention involves no more than the application of standard database management techniques to particular data sets.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
Because the method organizes the claim method, organizes the data by jurisdiction, the claims simply affects the label jurisdictional to standard tools like index lookup tables, database

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
identifiers and segmented databases.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
That does not satisfy section 103.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
How do you respond to Mr. Wecker's argument that the board didn't consider the arguments that his client made, in particular faulting the analysis on pages 17 through 19 of the appendix?

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
I think it did.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
First of all, it is correct that the

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
Two-stage search was not raised until the hearing under this court's precedent in Dell versus Acceleron.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
That's not enough.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
So it wasn't even before the board.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
And the claims do not directly require it.

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
But it is actually disclosed in Longley.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
As far as the board had some trouble discerning what the arguments were, as it noted in its decision, but it actually recounted all of those arguments.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
And it stepped through not only the references Harder and Longley,

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
but it pointed to the specific parts of the petition, which in turn elucidated the parts of the declaration that addressed these issues.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
And it's not true that Dr. Goodchild only addressed the jurisdictional lookup table in paragraph 44.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
It began in 41 to 44.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
And it is clearly in the art.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
So Longley discloses a jurisdiction

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
lookup table with jurisdictional identifiers.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
It's at 1443 of the appendix as the state's table with a state FIPS identifier.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
And that identifier is used to search another table to identify records with matching identifiers.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
Harder discloses searching, indexing rather, to speed up searches of parcel databases, longly discloses

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
not only indexing generally, but specifically a two-stage search with a lookup table.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
And that's the discussion of the grid index.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
Now what a grid index is, and actually Mr. Wecker helpfully on 892 drew this analogy to the board, it's analogous to the old-fashioned road atlas.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
So with a road atlas, as you might remember, the maps have a grid overlay and they're divided into boxes.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
And they have a lookup table.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
The Atlas would have a lookup table where you could identify the jurisdiction that you're wanting to travel to.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
So if you want to go to Alexandria, it'll say page 4, cell B3.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
And therefore, it speeds up your search of the Atlas, because you don't have to look through the entire Atlas.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
You just go to B3.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what Longley describes here on 1451 of the appendix, where he says that

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
The grid location of the object is listed in an index.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
It's recorded in a list that's an index.

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
And this is a lookup table because it has columns and rows.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
It would be effectively the object identifier and the grid location in the cell.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
And Longley says that the query searches the index for the grid location.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
And then the second stage of the search

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
You go to the actual cell and retrieve the object's geometry and attributes.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
So this is exactly a lookup table.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
And counsel did concede, after talking about the heroic atlas analogy, that the claimed lookup table is a form of index.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
And I don't think there could be any other dispute about that.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
Now, a lookup table is a broader term.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
testified to that.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
For example, you could have the old-fashioned times tables.

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
You avoid computation by just having a lookup.

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
But the claims refer to a lookup table that is indexed for identification of the pertinent jurisdictional database.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
And so in this context, the lookup table is an index.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Goodchild, in his declaration, talks about how

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
based on these references, that this is the use of indexing techniques to provide lookup functionalities.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
Just out of curiosity, what would it be if someone simply went to longitude, latitude, minutes and seconds and found exactly the same spot using that?

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure I understand your question.

[00:18:24] Speaker 04:
Well, you can do grid coordinates for any place in the world.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
Right, that's right.

[00:18:29] Speaker 04:
And if I give you latitude such and such, this many minutes, this many seconds, and longitude, the same thing, you can get right to within a foot of something.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
So you could search those on a table just as you could in the index.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
In fact, it's interesting on replybrief17 talking about his two-stage search.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
And I think, contrary to the argument.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
What I'm saying is wouldn't that be a one-stage search?

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
No, because the first stage is the search of the lookup table in the grid index situation.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
And then you're taking that grid identifier, you're going to the data for that cell, and then you're searching that.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
That's the second stage.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
So it is a two-stage search.

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
But the first, what's key here is the lookup table.

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
You're not getting my question.

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
I apologize.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
If I just go longitude and latitude, isn't that a one-stage search?

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, if that were all that you did.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
You had the longitude and latitude.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
But this is talking about where you need to actually find the object.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
And I think it is key that the lookup table in the grid index example in Longley, that first stage of the search is purely a textual search.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
The spatial search is later.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
So I think everything is taught by Longley and Harder.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
And it's also important to understand the key and uncontested points that Dr. Goodchild testified to about the background knowledge of one skilled in the art.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
And there are three, I think, that are important.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
First, the GIS commonly employed standard relational database software, all of which have indexing commands.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
Second, it was well known in the art to partition

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
a database into separate tables by jurisdictional levels like states and counties.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
And third, indexing was just well-known in the art.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
And BSI's expert, Huxhall, specifically conceded that it was common to configure indexes as tables and for indexes to be used to search other locations in the database.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
So that's why we say all that we have here is the application of a standard technique

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
to a particular type of data.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
And they're just saying, well, this type of data is stored as jurisdictional, so we're going to call it a jurisdiction lookup table, call it a jurisdictional identifier, call it a jurisdictional database.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
But I don't think Section 103 doesn't allow you, simply by affixing labels to standard tools, to have a patent that's considered obvious over prior art.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
So there's really no question here, the board did not

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
resort to common sense as an Arendt to supply a missing claim limitation.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
It only looked to common sense as one source of a motivation to combine these references, because anyone skilled in the art with large databases of this kind is going to want to enable fast searches.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
So for all these reasons, we think this court should affirm the board.

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
Unless the court has further questions.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:53] Speaker 03:
With respect to page 27 of the reply brief and the two-stage search issue of whether it was waived, they're listed as a series of references during the argument.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
I didn't understand for logic to be arguing that the waiver goes back to that it was only brought up at the hearing.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
That was not an argument that

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
that was briefed and I believe the board certainly didn't rely on that to discount and not address that argument.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
They're also just quickly searching the appendix at the appendix

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
That's one of the patent owners' responses that discusses the process in which that patent specification uses the county tax number to isolate portions of the database, which would be further used to then search for this specific parcel of interest.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
uh... and uh... two zero one nine two zero one nine.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
It's not in our appendix.

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
I don't have it.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
Well, I guess I'm working on a different electronic version.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
If the court is interested, we could supply that response.

[00:23:48] Speaker 03:
I also wanted to address the argument that Council is making about whether this is a missing limitation or a situation where there's a combination that's being supplied, motivation to combine.

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
Our argument is not at all about motivation to combine.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
If you read all our briefs, we do not contend that longly and harder are not combinable in this circumstance.

[00:24:18] Speaker 03:
What we contend is that if you look at Longley and Harder, Longley has one reference to indexing.

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
It's indexing fields within its single county database.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
It's not a jurisdiction lookup table.

[00:24:35] Speaker 03:
It's not indexing defined database.

[00:24:38] Speaker 03:
There's a single database there.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
Longley is what they rely on more directly to supply

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
the multi-jurisdictional aspect of this, which is using an index to get to a jurisdictional identifier that then is used to isolate a portion of the database to be searched.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
And in that respect, the best index, longly, is a textbook.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
It describes in general a lot of different indexes.

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
our trees, quad trees, that everybody understands is not relevant to this case.

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
The best index that they rely on is the grid index.

[00:25:27] Speaker 03:
And if you read the two pages of the board's decision, they have a quote from Longley of one line about this grid index, which we think actually proves that it's a one-stage search.

[00:25:41] Speaker 03:
But there's no analysis there of why

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
the grid index of Longley is not applicable to this patent.

[00:25:51] Speaker 03:
There is no sense that you can use that grid index as a jurisdictional lookup table.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
A grid index has rectangles.

[00:26:02] Speaker 03:
That's how that whole grid index works.

[00:26:05] Speaker 03:
And in this patent, coming up with the jurisdictional index is, think about it, is to identify a jurisdiction, like a county or a city,

[00:26:16] Speaker 03:
It would be highly unusual that those would be in the nature of a rectangle.

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
If they're not in the nature of a rectangle, grid indexing doesn't work.

[00:26:27] Speaker 03:
The idea of grid indexing is to place this mesh to divide out the map.

[00:26:34] Speaker 03:
And there's a whole discussion of at what resolution you apply that mesh.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
But it's going up and down and objects are

[00:26:45] Speaker 03:
located, they have an identifier.

[00:26:48] Speaker 03:
You don't need to use the grid to identify the object.

[00:26:53] Speaker 03:
And so what it says is... Final thought, you did your time.

[00:26:58] Speaker 03:
Okay, so what grid NX, what Longley says is that you find the object based on its object ID.

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
Essentially it's XY coordinates, longitude, latitude,

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
And then you pull out, for further analysis, object geometry, its relation to other objects, and a whole bunch of information.

[00:27:25] Speaker 03:
But that's after the search is done.

[00:27:28] Speaker 03:
You've already found the object.

[00:27:30] Speaker 03:
It only takes one step to do it.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:27:34] Speaker 03:
We thank both sides and the cases submitted.