Ex Parte 7805025 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

95000681 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/000,681 08/27/2012 7805025 13557-105153.R1 7654
23363 7590 03/01/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
EXAMINER
CRAVER, CHARLES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
GOOGLE INC.,
Requester

v.

VEDERI, LLC,
Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

2
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, Patent Owner has submitted a Request
for Rehearing (“Request”), requesting rehearing of the June 26, 2015
opinion (“Opinion”) that affirmed (1) the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70–72 of U.S. Patent No.
7,805,025 B2 (“the ’025 patent) and (2) the Examiner’s determination
favorable to patentability of claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–
54, 63, 75–84, and 86–88 of the ’025 patent. Opinion (Op.) 2–3, 28.
Requester timely submitted Comments in Opposition to the Request
for Rehearing (hereafter “3PR Comments”) on August 27, 2015.
As an initial matter, Requester asserts that Patent Owner’s Request is
untimely. 3PR Comments 1–5. We are not persuaded on the merits of the
Request and do not reach the issue of whether the Request is untimely.

Patent Owner Contentions
We have reconsidered the Opinion in light of the Request and 3PR
Comments. We find no errors. We therefore decline to change our prior
decision for the following reasons.
Patent Owner first argues the Board erred in affirming the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70–72
of the ’025 patent based on Yee1 and Dykes2 by overlooking the full

1 Frank Yee, GPS & Video Data Collection in Los Angeles County: A Status
Report, Position Location And Navigation Symposium, IEEE Position
Location and Navigation Symp. 338–393 (1994) (“Yee”).
2 J. Dykes, An Approach To Virtual Environments For Visualization Using
Linked Geo-referenced Panoramic Imagery, Computers, Environment and
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

3
construction and “important portions of” the limitation “wherein the images
are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device
moving along a trajectory” as recited in claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55.3
Request 2–3. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the Board’s decision
limited the discussion to the limitation “by an image recording device
moving along a trajectory” rather than the entire recitation of “wherein the
images are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording
device moving along a trajectory.” Request 3 (quoting from Op. 12).
We disagree. As a general tenet, claims are considered as a whole.
We acknowledged this tenet in the Opinion when stating that we consider
the disputed recitation “in its entirety.” Op. 12; see also 3PR Comments 4–5
(bolding and emphasis omitted). However, when considering a disputed
limitation, one must necessarily considered relevant components of the
claims to determine the scope of the claim and whether the prior art reads on
the claimed invention.
As the Opinion indicates, Requester disputed the construction of the
specific phrase, “moving along a trajectory” in claims 21, 43, and 55, and
Owner responded to this contention. Op. 11 (citing 3PR App. Br. 8–9; PO
Reb. Br. 6). As such, we addressed the particular phrase “an image
recording device moving along a trajectory” to respond to Requester’s
argument. No argument was made by Patent Owner concerning how to

Urban Systems, 24 COMPUTERS, ENV’T AND URB. SYSTEMS 127–152 (2000)
(“Dykes”).
3 These claims have been canceled but are subject matter included within
dependent claims that are pending. See PO App. Br., Claims App’x.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

4
construe the entire limitation “wherein the images are associated with image
frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” by
Patent Owner. See PO App. Br. 10–19 (discussing how to construe the
phrase “composite image” and arguing that Yee and Dykes do not teach a
composite image); PO Reb. Br. 2–11 (discussing the terms “moving” and
“trajectory” within the limitation “image frames acquired by an image
recording device moving along a trajectory.”) Nor has Patent Owner
pointed to a contention in the briefs that we overlooked or misapprehended
in rendering the Opinion. Request 2–3.
Patent Owner also asserts that we did not analyze the entire phrase to
determine “whether or not it is reasonable to construe the limitation so
broadly as to encompass references that disclose situations where all of the
images are captured while the image recording device is stationary.”
Request 3. Addressing whether the above construction is reasonable was
unnecessary in rendering our Opinion. That is, there is no requirement that
the entire scope of a claim limitation be discussed in an Opinion. See In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing that there is no
requirement to make a claim construction of every term in every rejected
claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the
claimed invention).
To clarify, in addressing the Yee/Dykes rejection, the Opinion
discussed that Yee teaches a vehicle moves and acquires image frames by an
image recording device at a certain rate per second. Op. 24. The Opinion
specifically states “Yee teaches acquiring images, not just at the same point,
but also at a rate of 30 frames per second as the GeoVan travels. Yee 389–
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

5
390; see also 3PR Resp. Br. 18. This illustrates that the van moves to
different points in a trajectory while acquiring images. See id.” Op. 24.
Additionally, the breadth of the claims recite the images are associated
“with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a
trajectory” and not that the images are generated necessarily from image
frames acquired by a moving image recording device.
Next, Patent Owner asserts that the Board overlooked deficiencies in
Dykes and Yee. Request 4–7. Specifically, Patent Owner argues: (1) the
arrows in Dykes do not disclose displaying a direction identifier and
receiving a navigation direction relative to the first location (Request 4–6)
and (2) Yee and Dykes do not disclose “‘determining a second location
based on the user specified navigation direction’” (Request 6–7). Regarding
Dykes, Patent Owner asserts that the discussion of “directions and distances
of a number of panoramic images that are linked to a map . . . [and] are
represented by hot-linked symbols within panoramas” (Request 4 (quoting
Dykes 139 with italics omitted)) do not correspond to the “arrows” as
proposed (Request 5). Patent Owner contends the word “arrow” is only
found in other portions of Dykes. Id. (citing Dykes 137, 141).
As noted by the Requester (3PR Comments 5), Patent Owner
contends for the first time in the Request that Dykes’ arrow does not teach
the recitations of “displaying on the screen a direction identifier for
indicating the viewing direction depicted in the first image” and “receiving a
second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first
location in the geographic area.” Request 4. Requester asserts we should
not consider this argument further because it is newly presented in the
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

6
Request. 3PR Comments 5. Prior to the Request, Requester indicates that
Patent Owner’s argument concerning Yee and Dykes was tailored narrowly
to the composite image. 3PR Comments 6 (citing PO App. Br. 19–24). We
agree that the argument concerning the arrows in Dykes has not been
previously presented. As this argument is newly presented in the Request, it
could not have been overlooked or misapprehended.
Even so, we reiterate that Dykes discusses “[s]howing the directions .
. . of panoramic images that . . . provides the ability to navigate across the
virtual space and between recognised features.” Dykes 139, cited at Op. 19;
RAN 17; 3PR Comments 6–7. We fail to see how showing the direction of
panoramic images does not teach displaying a direction identifier “for
indicating the viewing direction depicted in the first image” as recited. In
fact, Figure 4 presented by Patent Owner (Request 5) further supports this
determination made by Examiner. RAN 16–17, 70, cited at Op. 18–19
(displaying the direction on the panoramic image, such as using the symbols
shown in Figure 4). Also, Dykes teaches a user can navigate across the
virtual space between recognized features (e.g., user input specifying a
navigational direction relative to the first location) and that the location of
other panoramic images are represented by hot-linked symbols that can be
displayed when clicked. Dykes 139 (discussed at Op. 19 and 3PR Request
7). Finally, the rejection further proposes to include these features of Dykes
into Yee to meet these limitations. RAN 16–17, cited at Op. 19.
Next, Patent Owner argues that Yee and Dykes collectively do not
disclose the recited steps of “receiving a second user input specifying a
navigation direction relative to the first location in the geographic area” or
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

7
“determining a second location based on the user specification navigation
direction.” Request 6–7. In particular, Patent Owner contends that the
Opinion does not provide any analysis concerning the RAN’s position that
Dykes’ teaching of dragging, navigating, and panning the field of view
disclose the above limitations and that such a position by the Examiner is
erroneous. Request 6–7 (citing RAN 17 and Dykes 137, 139). Once again,
Patent Owner points to no place where this argument was previously
presented. Id. Because this argument has not been presented for
consideration by the Board, this is not an argument that we could have
overlooked or misapprehended. See 3PR Comments 8.
Lastly, as for claims 6, 18, 34, and 68, Patent Owner repeats
arguments previously presented that each of the four views in Yee’s 4-view
image are taken from the same point or location. Request 8; Op. 23–24
(citing PO App. Br. 23–24). We addressed this argument in the Opinion.
Op. 23–24. As such, this argument was not overlooked.
To explain, the Opinion indicated that Yee’s four-view example based
on Lachinski4 was speculative in some aspects. Op. 15. On the other hand,
the Opinion reproduces a portion of Lachinski, in concluding the passage
supports that Yee teaches including a composite four-view image having
four images, one in each of the four corners. Op. 15–16. When addressing
the specific “same point in a trajectory” argument presented in the briefs, we
found that Yee teaches acquiring images not at the same point but also a rate
of 30 frames per second as the van travels and at different points in the

4 Lachinski, US 5,633,946, issued May 27, 1997 (“Lachinski”).
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

8
trajectory. Op. 24; 3PR Comments 10. We further indicated that the
four-view image example in Yee includes a separate real estate view from an
address view or a separate front and back view from a curbside view. See
Op. 14, 24. From this discussion in Yee, the Opinion further explains that
one skilled in the art would have recognized that these different views “may
be taken at a different point in a trajectory.” Op. 24. Furthermore, as noted
by Requester (3PR Comments 9–11), the Opinion relies on Yee and Dykes
collectively to reject claims 6, 18, 34, and 68. Op. 23–24 (citing RAN 24–
25, which cites Yee 389–392, Fig. 1 and Dykes 134–135, Fig. 2). As such,
we find that we did not misapprehend Patent Owner’s argument.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that we
misapprehended or overlooked any points that were raised in its briefs. 37
C.F.R. § 41.52.
We have considered the arguments raised by Patent Owner in the
Request, but those arguments do not persuade us that the original decision
was in error. Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal,
we are still of the view that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2–6,
8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70–72 of the ’025 patent.
We have granted the Request to the extent that we have reconsidered
our decision of June 26, 2015, but we deny the Request with respect to
making any changes therein.

REHEARING DENIED

Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

9
for PATENT OWNER:

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
PO BOX 29001
GLENDALE, CA 91209-9001

for THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036