Ex Parte 7805025 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2015

95000681 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2015)

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 06/26/2015
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
EXAMINER
CRAVER, CHARLES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2015 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.

Patent of 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.

DECISION ON APPEAL

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

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Google Inc. (Requester) made a third party request for inter partes
reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,805,025 B2 (“the ’025 patent”) to Enrico Di
Bernardo and Luis F. Goncalves, entitled System and Method for Creating, Storing
and Utilizing Images of a Geographic Location, issued September 28, 2010, and
assigned to Vederi, LLC.
Both Owner and Requester indicate that the ’025 patent is the subject of
litigation, styled as Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., Civil No. 2:10-CV-07747 AK-CW
(C.D. Cal.), Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 13-1057, and Vederi, LLC v.
Google Inc., Case No. 13-1296.1 PO App. Br. 2; 3PR App. Br. 1, 39 (Related
Proceedings App’x). Additionally, both Owner and Requester indicate that this
appeal may be related to U.S. Patent No. 7,239,760 B2, which is the subject of
inter partes reexamination having been assigned Control No. 95/000,682. Id. In
the Respondent Brief, Requester further indicates this appeal may be related to
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,577,316 B2 and 7,813,596 B2, which are the subjects of inter
partes reexaminations having been assigned Control Nos. 95/000,683 and
95/000,684. 3PR Resp. Br. 1.
Owner appeals from the decision in the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice
(RAN) rejecting claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70–72 of
the ’025 patent. PO App. Br. 3; RAN 1. Requester filed a responsive brief, and
Owner filed a rebuttal brief. See generally 3PR Resp. Br. and PO Reb.
Requester also appeals the Examiner's determination favorable to

1 Cases Nos. 13-1057 and 13-1296 were merged and decided on March 14, 2014.
Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., 744 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014), rh’g en banc denied.
On October 16, 2014 a petition for writ of certiorari styled as Google, Inc. v.
Vederi, LLC was filed.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

3
patentability of claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63, 75–84, and
86–88. 3PR App. Br. 2, 40–41.
The Examiner’s Answer relies on the RAN, incorporating it by reference.
See Ans. 1.
An oral hearing was conducted on May 13, 2015. The transcript of the oral
hearing will be made of record.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315.
We AFFIRM.
Canceled claim 1 and dependent claim 7 (not subject to reexamination) are
relevant to this appeal and reproduced below with emphasis added:
1. In a system including an image source and a user terminal having a
screen and an input device, a method for enabling visual navigation of
a geographic area from the user terminal, the method comprising:
receiving a first user input specifying a first location in the
geographic area;
retrieving from the image source a first image associated with
the first location, the image source providing a plurality of images
depicting views of objects in the geographic area, the views being
substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area, wherein
the images are associated with image frames acquired by an image
recording device moving along a trajectory;
displaying on the screen a direction identifier for indicating the
viewing direction depicted in the first image;
receiving a second user input specifying a navigation direction
relative to the first location in the geographic area;
determining a second location based on the user specified
navigation direction; and
retrieving from the image source a second image associated
with the second location.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second images are
each a composite image, wherein each composite image is created by
processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

4

The ’025 patent 15:42–63; PO App. Br. 42, Claims App’x.

A. Prior Art Relied Upon
Either the Examiner or Requester relies on the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lachinski2 US 5,633,946 May 27, 1997

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”).

Toru Ishida et al., Digital City Kyoto: Towards A Social Information
Infrastructure, 1652 Lecture Notes in Artificial Int. from Int’l Workshop on
Cooperative Inf. Agents 23-35 (1999) (“Ishida”).

J. Dykes, An Approach To Virtual Environments For Visualization Using Linked
Geo-referenced Panoramic Imagery, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,
24 Computers, Env’t and Urb. Systems 127-152 (2000) (“Dykes”).

B. Adopted and Withdrawn Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following proposed rejection, for which Owner
appeals:

2 Requester indicates that Lachinski was cited in its Comments to rebut Owner’s
response and explain how Yee’s four-view images are created. 3PR Resp. Br.
9–10; February 6, 2013 Third Party Requester Comments 23–24. Although not
relying on Lachinski in the rejection, the Examiner cites to Lachinski and, by
implication, indicates the reference was proper under 37 C.F.R. §1.948(a)(2). See
RAN 72. Owner does not rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Lachinski to teach how
Yee’s 4-view image is created.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

5
Reference(s) Basis Claims RAN
Yee and Dykes § 103(a)
2–6, 8–10,
14–18, 20,
33–36, 56–60,
64–68, and
70–72
15–62

PO App. Br. 9.
The Examiner withdrew or did not adopt the following proposed rejections,
for which Requester appeals:
Reference(s) Basis Claims RAN
Ishida and Dykes § 103(a) 24, 26, 28, 29, 75
ACP 61–63,
66; RAN 62–
64, 67; 3PR
App. Br. 11–
18
Ishida, Dykes, and Yee § 103(a)
37, 38, 41, 42,
44–48, 51–54,
63, and 76–
84, 86–88
February 6,
2013 3PR
Comments,
pp. 37–49;
3PR App. Br.
19–40

3PR App. Br. 8, 11, 19.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified
by Owner, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Any arguments or authorities not
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

6
included in the briefs permitted under this section or [37 C.F.R.] §§ 41.68 and
41.71 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.” 37
C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
Based on the disputed errors presented by Owner and Requester, the main
issues on appeal are:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 35 by finding Yee and Dykes
would have taught or suggested “the first and second images are each a composite
image, wherein each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a
plurality of the image frames,” giving this phrase its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the disclosure;
(2) Did the Examiner provide a basis to combine the teachings of these
references supported by an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion; and
(3) Did the Examiner err in withdrawing the proposed rejection of claim 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ishida and Dykes?

III. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification, as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). There is a
“heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A patentee
may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as his own lexicographer,
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

7
providing a definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the
specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Owner and Requester discuss the limitations of claims 1 and 7 in their
respective appeal briefs. We note that claims 1 is canceled, and claim 7 is not
subject to this reexamination. RAN 1. However, the claims on appeal depend
directly or indirectly from these claims or include similar recitations. Thus, each
appealed claim has those or similar recitations. Accordingly, below, we discuss
limitations found in claims 1 and 7.
1. “the first and second images are each a composite image, wherein
each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a
plurality of the image frames” of claim 7

Claim 7 recites “the first and second images are each a composite image,
wherein each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of
the image frames.” Owner disputes the claim construction of the particular phrase,
“composite image,” finding the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonably broad. PO
App. Br. 12–19; PO Reb. 11–12. Owner argues that
The composite image presents a single new view of the objects in the
geographical area. The single view is different from any of the views
depicted in any one of the image frames from which the composite image is
created, e.g., it can be a wider view. Moreover, the new view is from a
single location as if the viewer was at that location.

PO App. Br. 14. To support this position, Owner cites to Figure 2 of the ’025
patent and composite image 40. Id. at 15–16. Owner further contends that
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

8
“[n]othing in the ’025 patent suggests that two or more separate and independent
images become a ‘composite image’ as the term is used in the ’025 patent simply
because they are displayed simultaneously on a screen.” Id. 17.
The Examiner, on the other hand, finds the phrase, “composite image,”
includes combining four images into a single image. RAN 68. The Examiner
incorporates the Requester’s Comments on pages 20 through 24 of the response
filed August 21, 2013. Id. In these comments, Requester argues Owner is reading
limitations improperly into the claims. August 21, 2013 3PR Comments 22. We
agree with the Examiner and Requester.
When considering the disclosure, the ’025 patent discusses creating
“composite images” by synthesizing images, image data, or image frames. The
’025 patent, Abstract, 2:22–24, 34–36, 3:46–49, 5:45–47. This disclosure also
states image data from each selected image frame 42 is extracted and combined to
form the composite image. Id. at 5:66–6:1. None of these discussions state that
the composite image is a “new view” or that the view is “different from any other
views depicted in any one of the image frames” as Owner contends. See RAN 68.
Also, none of these discussions address how the images are synthesized or
combined to form the composite image. See id. at 5:47–51. Other portions of the
’025 patent state a preference that the composite image provides a field of view
that is wider than that of a single image acquired by an image recording device and
how image data extracted from each image frame creates a composite image on a
column-by-column basis. Id. at 2:36–39, 5:47–51, 6:1–5; Fig. 2. We stress,
however, that the ’025 patent describes these characteristics and how to combine
the information as preferences of a composite image. See id.; see 3PR Resp. Br.
6–7. We find the disclosure of the ’025 patent does not define the phrase
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

9
“composite image” with the reasonable precision necessary to require this phrase
to mean a new or different view.
The plain and ordinary meaning of “composite” includes “something that is
made up of different parts.”3 A single image consisting of data from four reduced
image frames is something made from different parts (e.g., a composite). Also, an
ordinary meaning of (1) “synthesize” 4 includes “to make (something) by
combining different things” or “to combine (things) to make something new,” and
(2) “combine,”5 includes “to unite into a single number or expression.” In other
words, given its broadest, reasonable construction consistent with the disclosure,
the phrase “composite image” includes a single image created by combining
different image data or by uniting image data. We therefore disagree with Owner
that one skilled in the art “would have understood that a composite image is more
than placing disparate images frames side-by-side” (PO Reb. 16) within a single
image, given that a composite image includes a single image formed from
combining or uniting image data from different image frames.
Accordingly, the language in claim 7 is broader in scope than any disclosed
embodiment, and we agree that Owner is importing limitations improperly into the

3 Definition of “composite” (noun). Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th
ed., available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/composite (last
visited May 18, 2015).
4 Definition of “synthesize.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th ed.,
available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synthesize (last visited
May 15, 2015).
5 Definition of “combine” (def. 1c). Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th
ed., available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/combine (last visited
May 15, 2015).

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

10
phrase, “composite image.” See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Concerning the remainder of the disputed limitation that “each composite
image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames” in
claim 7, Owner states “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would further
understand this [recitation] to mean ‘an image formed by combining two or more
image frames at the pixel level.’” PO App. Br. 14. Owner states, “[a] person of
ordinary skill in the art would also understand that this requires that pixel values of
the composite image are computed from pixel values of the two or more image
frames from which the composite image is created.” Id. at15. For support, Owner
refers to a “Joint Construction of Agreed Terms, Joint Exhibit C” which is
included in the appeal brief’s Evidence Appendix, Exhibit A. Id. at 14 n.1. We are
not persuaded.
Although noted, we are not obligated to follow the same claim construction
as the district court. See In re Trans Texas Hold’gs Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting the PTO was not a party to the district court litigation and
that “[c]laims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with
the specification, in reexamination proceedings.’” (citation omitted)). The ’025
patent describes how image data is extracted from each frame and the composite
image is created on a column-by-column basis. Id. at 6:1–11. Yet, this passage
discusses a preferred technique of how image data is combined. See id. To be
sure, the claims require “processing pixel data of a plurality of image frames.” But
this recitation does not recite how the pixel data of the images frames are
processed, such that the image frames must be combined at the pixel level or that
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

11
pixel values of the composite image are computed from pixel values of two or
more image frames.
Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of “processing,” claim 7 requires
no more than using the pixel data from two or more image frames to create a
composite image. We see no specific limitation that “processing” involves
generating pixel values for the composite image, such that pixel data of the
composite image must be computed from two or more image frames. See PO App.
Br. 15. Rather, an ordinary meaning of “processing pixel data of a plurality of
image frames” requires no more using pixel data from two or more image frames
to create the composite image. We thus find the construction of the limitation
“each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the
image frames” is broader in scope than Owner urges.
2. “wherein the images are associated with image frames acquired
by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” of claims
1, 13, 21, 43, and 55

Requester contends that the Examiner erred in his construction of the phrase,
“moving along a trajectory” in claims 21, 43, and 55 to require a specified or
predetermined trajectory. 3PR App. Br. 8–9 (citing RAN 8). In particular,
Requester argues that the Examiner failed to construe this phrase using the
broadest reasonable construction. Id. at 8–11. In its rebuttal brief, Owner agrees
with the Examiner’s construction of “trajectory,” further finding that “‘trajectory’
by definition refers to the path of a moving object, not a stationary object.” PO
Reb. 6. Owner asserts that its construction is “supported by and consistent with the
specification.” Id. at 7–11.
Although Requester asserts that the Examiner incorrectly construed the
phrase, “along a trajectory,” within the phrase, “the images are associated with
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

12
image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory,”
Requester also discusses that the Examiner properly construed the rest the
recitation to include taking images “when a device is both in motion and is not in
motion at the moment of image acquisition.” 3PR App. Br. 9 (quoting “capture of
data either while in motion, or not while in motion, or both, meets the claim term”
at RAN 6). Owner takes a differing position, namely that it is unreasonable to
construe the claims broad enough to encompass situations where all the images are
captured while the image recording device is stationary. PO Reb. 3. We thus
consider the recitation, “the images are associated with image frames acquired by
an image recording device moving along a trajectory,” in its entirety.
Concerning this dispute, the Examiner states the phrase, “‘moving along a
trajectory’ does not obviate the overall requirement that the image acquisition
device travel along the claimed trajectory” (RAN 8) and that “an actual trajectory
is clearly required by the claim” (RAN 72). We agree, in essence, because claim 1
explicitly recites “an image recording device moving along a trajectory.” We also
accept that a plain meaning of “trajectory” includes a “path followed by a
projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces” (PO Reb. 5
(citing Oxford Dictionaries found in PO Reb., Evidence App’x, Ex. C)) or a “path
of a moving particle or body, esp. such a path in three dimensions” (citing The
American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd Col. ed. 1285 found in PO Reb., Evidence
App’x, Ex. D)). The disclosure of the ’025 patent also supports that a trajectory is
synonymous with a path. The ’025 patent, 3:56 (stating “trajectory/path.”) Thus,
the broadest reasonable construction of trajectory in claim 1 consistent with the
disclosure includes a path, course or route of a moving object (i.e., the recited
image recording device).
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

13
We, however, disagree with the Examiner that “this [trajectory] is
interpreted by the Examiner as more than mere random or undetermined motion
but a determined path taken by the data gathering system.” RAN 72–73; 3PR App.
Br. 9 (quoting a portion of this passage in RAN). Namely, we agree with
Requester that the claim fails to limit the trajectory to one that is “determined” or
“specified.” 3PR App. Br. 9. The ’025 patent provides an “illustration of a
trajectory” in Figure 9 where a camera is moved along a path (e.g., 110 including
streets or blocks) making turns at intersections. The ’025 patent, 3:14–15, 7:55–
60; Fig. 9. Arguably, this path of streets (e.g., 110) was determined or specified
prior to recording. See id. Yet, even in this example, we note that, when driving
down a street,6 there exists an element of unpredictability or randomness, such as
lane shifting or detours (see 3PR App. Br. 10), which deviates from any purported,
predetermined route shown in Figure 9. Moreover, this is just one example of a
path found in the disclosure, whereas the claim’s scope is not limited to this
“illustration” of a trajectory. See 3PR App. Br. 9.
In summary, we find that “an image recording device moving along a
trajectory” in claim 1 requires the image moving device to move along a path,
course or route, but that the path need not be predetermined or specified.
B. Did the Examiner err in finding that Yee and Dykes collectively teach
or suggest the composite image as recited?

Claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70–72 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee and Dykes. As discussed above, claim 7

6 Requester further notes that this construction of “along a trajectory” is consistent
with the Owner’s construction in the context of an infringement proceeding. 3PR
App. Br. 10 (citing Evidence App’x, Ex. EA-01, p. 21).
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

14
recites the limitation, “the first and second images are each a composite image,
wherein each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of
the image frames.” Claims 19 (not on appeal), 35, and 69 (not on appeal) also
include this limitation. Except for claim 35 itself, the rejected claims depend
directly or indirectly from claims 7, 19, 35, and 69. Owner argues claims 6, 8, 17,
18, 20, 33, 34, 36, 67 68, and 70 separately. PO App. Br. 22–24. The remaining
claims are argued as a group, and we select claim 35 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(c)(1)(vii).
Owner disputes that Yee teaches the recited “composite image.” PO App.
Br. 17–19; PO Reb. 11–12. The Examiner cites Exhibit CC-D in finding Yee
teaches the composite image. See RAN 15 (citing the November 7, 2012 “First
Action,” which further refers to the Request, Exhibit CC-D at Non-Final Act. 14),
17. Specifically, the Request quotes the following language from Yee: “[s]ome of
the specific data to be collected and made available in economical standard
products include: curbside view, front and back; street view, front and back; real
estate view left and right; real estate and address zoom, 4-view; and composites of
them.” Request, Evidence App’x, Ex. CC-D, p. 25–26 (citing Yee 389).
Although Owner and Requester discuss the 4-view collection of data at
length, Yee addresses a “composite of them” separate from the “4-view.” Yee
389. Yee explicitly discloses “composites” (id.; see RAN 71) and “them” refers
back to the other views, including a front and back curbside view, a front and back
street view, a left and right real estate view. Thus, Yee teaches creating
“composites” of these various views. Given the understanding of “composite
image,” as explained above, we agree that Yee explicitly teaches a composite
image made from these different views (e.g., image frames) discussed in this
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

15
passage. Notably, identity of terminology is not required. See In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Next, turning to the specific discussion of the “4-view” example in Yee,
Owner argues this is not “a composite image” as recited. PO App. Br. 18
(referring to “Requester’s remarks” submitted on August 21, 2013). Owner
produces “[a]n example of a Yee’s 4-view.” Id. Yet, as Requester notes, the
example illustrated on page 18 of the brief is “neither found in Yee nor Lachinski”
and has not been demonstrated to be “an accurate portrayal of the four-view
images disclosed in Yee.” 3PR Resp. Br. 10. We also cannot locate the produced
4-view example in Yee or Lachinski,7 which has been cited by Requester to
illustrate how the “4-view” discussed in Yee is created. 3PR Resp. Br. 9–10.
Thus, the example provided by Owner is speculative and fails to demonstrate that
the images would be “clearly delineated by blank spaces.” PO App. Br. 18–19.
Nevertheless, some similarities exist between what is shown in Owner’s
hypothetical example and what Yee and Lachinski disclose. Yee discusses
“images can be displaced as rolling video of four views in a frame . . . .” Yee 392.
Lachinski further states:
The four-view generator 62 has four inputs 82, allowing signals from four of
the video cameras 50 to be input simultaneously. The generator 62 reduces
the image represented by each signal to one-fourth of its original size and
then combines the reduced images to form a single video image by placing
each of the reduced images into one of the four corners of an output image.

7 Lachinski is a patent issued to GeoSpan, and GeoSpan and a “4-view” are
discussed in Yee. Yee 388–89. Lachinski was introduced in Requester’s February
6, 2013 Comments 23 “to explain Yee’s teachings and to rebut Patent Owner’s
mischaracterization of Yee, which was permitted under § 1.948(a)(2).” 3PR Resp.
Br. 9.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

16
Lachinski, 5:25-31; Fig. 3. This supports that the 4-view discussed in Yee (Yee
389) includes four images, one in each of four corners that is reduced in size.
Lachinski, 5:25-31; Fig. 3. Lachinski also states the generator produces “a single
video image” that includes four reduced size images. Id.
Moreover, Yee teaches and suggests that data from the four images, which
includes its pixel data, are used to create the reduced-sized images. This “four
views in a frame” in Yee (Yee 392) or the “single video image” with four-views,
each one-fourth of its original size that form “reduced images,” further explained
in Lachinski (Lachinski 5:25–31) is a single image that is made up of different
parts or image frames (e.g., image data from multiple views) and uses pixel data
from each of the different view image frames to create the single image. Yee
therefore teaches and suggests “a composite image” as broadly as recited.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claims 2–5, 9, 10, 14–16, 35, 56–60, 64–66, 71, and 72 by finding Yee and Dykes8
collectively would have taught or suggested “the first and second images are each a
composite image, wherein each composite image is created by processing pixel
data of a plurality of the image frames,” giving this phrase its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the disclosure.
C. Did the Examiner provide a reason with a rational underpinning to
combine Dykes with Yee?

Next, Owner argues that Yee and Dykes “are opposite in nature” and have
“cross-purposes.” PO App. Br. 19–20. Owner further asserts the combination

8 Although not discussed in the context of teaching the recited “composite image”
for these claims, Requester later states Dykes teaches a process of stitching images
together to create a continuous panorama. See 3PR Resp. Br. 15. Owner admits
that the panoramas in Dykes are composite images. PO App. Br. 19.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

17
Dykes with Yee would defeat the key purpose of Yee, which is to relate images
accurately and precisely with the geographic position (e.g., photogrammetry). Id.
at 20. Owner even further contends that the cost to combine these references
would be prohibitive or at greater expense for no apparent reason. Id. at 21. We
are not persuaded.
Although there are differences between Yee and Dykes, we disagree that
they are opposite, such that one skilled in the art would not combine the teachings
in these references. As both Requester and Owner acknowledge, “each teaches
how to capture and visualize a geographic area” (PO App. Br. 19), and thus, the
references have some relationship to each other. See 3PR Resp. Br. 12–13 (citing
Yee, Abstract and Dykes 146 and discussing how both relate to collecting images
of a geographic area). Also and importantly, the adopted rejection relies on Yee —
not Dykes — to teach the limitation of “providing by image source a plurality of
images depicting views of the objects in a geographic area . . . wherein the images
are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving
along a trajectory” recited in claim 21, which is similar to recitations found in
claims 1, 13, 43, and 55. See Request, Evidence App’x, Ex. CC-D, p. 2–4 (citing
Yee 389–90); see also 3PR Resp. Br. 16 (indicating that the rejection does not
propose replacing Yee’s image acquisition process with that of Dykes). Thus, any
differences between how Yee and Dykes collects or acquires image data do not
correspond to the combined teachings as proposed.
Moreover, contrary to Owner’s assertion (PO App. Br. 19), one skilled in the
art would have recognized the references’ similarities and would not immediately
have found the references have cross-purposes. As the Examiner notes, “[t]he test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

18
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is not necessary that the
entirety of Dykes comport with the teachings of Yee or that the two references
parallel each other throughout.” RAN 70.
We further disagree that there is a teaching away from modifying Yee as
proposed. PO App. Br. 20–21. Owner argues that Yee’s key purpose is to use
photogrammetry to relate the images with their geographic positions and to enable
accurate surveying. Id. at 20. Owner contends that modifying Yee with Dykes
panoramic composite images would prevent Yee’s photogrammetric analysis,
because “it is impossible to compute dimension and locations of objects from a
panoramic view because of the lack of parallax.” Id.; PO Reb. 17. As noted
above, the rejection does not propose to modify Yee to include Dykes panoramic
composite image. See RAN 70 (indicating that “Yee teaches all the claim
[limitations] with the exception of a direction identifier and specifying a navigation
direction relative to the first location for determining the second location.”) We
thus find this argument misplaced.
We additionally adopt Requester’s remarks related to Owner failing to
provide persuasive evidence that Dykes cannot be combined with Yee. See 3PR
Resp. Br. 14–17. In particular, as discussed by Requester, Dykes is cited to teach
displaying an arrow in a user interface (e.g., displaying a direction identifier and
receiving an input specifying a navigation direction as recited in claims) and to
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

19
include such a feature in Yee. RAN 16–179 (citing Dykes, pp. 134, 136–137, 139–
142, 145), 70; 3PR Resp. Br. 13. The rejection suggests to include Dykes teaching
of including an arrow in a display interface to improve Yee’s system by providing
“the ability to navigate across the virtual space” and provide “a real sense of
spatiality and immersion that are the essence of the virtual environment.” 3PR
Resp. Br. 13 (citing Dykes 139). The Examiner similarly supports this reason to
combine the references, stating “Dykes explicitly and specifically explains how the
user is enabled to navigate locations by visualizing the location spatially as
represented by symbols (icons) on the map that link the map to images. Dykes at
139-140.” RAN 17 (cited by 3PR Resp. Br. 13). In other words, Dykes teaches a
known technique for navigating and visualizing images of a geographic area, and
one skilled in the art would have recognized that Dykes’ teaching would improve
on Yee’s system in the same manner. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417 (2007).
Concerning Owner’s contention that modifying Yee would amount to extra
work and greater expense for no apparent reason, we disagree. Once again,
Owner’s arguments are misplaced, focusing on modifying Yee’s image gathering
approach with Dykes’ image acquisition technique, which is not how the teachings
of Dykes and Yee are proposed to be combined. PO App. Br. 21–22; see RAN 70.
Additionally, as Requester indicates, the arguments presented by Owner related to
greater expense and greater work are essentially unsupported by evidence other
than counsel’s assertions. See 3PR Resp. Br. 14–15 (citing PO App. Br. 19–20).

9 The Examiner also cites to Request 120–154, the November 7, 2012 Non-Final
Act. 14, and Request, Exhibit CC-D. RAN 15, 19.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

20
Such arguments cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. See Estee
Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In summary, we determine the record provides a basis supported by an
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to combine the teachings of
Yee and Dykes as proposed and to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
D. Claims 8, 17, 20, 33, 36, 67, and 70
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites “wherein the first and second
images each depict a wider field of view than is depicted in any one of the image
frames.” Claims 20, 36, and 70 recite similar limitations, and claims 17, 33, and
67 require the images provide “a panoramic view of the objects at respectively the
first and second locations.” Thus, unlike claims 7, 19, 35, and 69 discussed above,
claims 8, 20, 36, and 70 require that the images depict a wider field of view than
that depicted by any image frame.
Owner argues these claims as a group, and we select claim 8 as
representative. Many of the arguments presented by Owner discussed above are
applicable to this group of claims, and we refer to our previous discussion.
Regarding claim 8, Owner argues that Yee’s 4-view display cannot be
considered to display a panoramic view or depict a wider field of view. PO App.
Br. 23. Although acknowledging that Dykes discloses composite images depicting
panoramic views or wider field of view, Owner further refers to its previous
arguments asserting that there is no reason to modify Yee to include Dykes’
panoramic composite images. Id. We disagree.
As noted above, we determine that the record reflects that Yee and Dykes
have similar teachings and there is a reason to combine Dykes with Yee. We
further determine that the assertion presented by Owner, that one skilled in the art
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

21
would not have combine Dykes and Yee due to the prohibitive cost, was
unsupported by persuasive evidence. We further adopt Requester’s reason for
combining Yee and Dykes to arrive at the claimed subject matter. 3PR Resp. Br.
16–17.
Concerning whether the combination would defeat a key purpose of Yee, the
Examiner finds that Yee teaches a composite image, as explained above, and
further that Dykes teaches stitching a composite image together from multiple
images, creating a panorama or a wider field of view. RAN 27 (citing Dykes 134–
135; Fig. 2). Thus, unlike claim 35 discussed above, this rejection combines Yee’s
composite image teaching with Dykes’ panoramic view teaching to create the
recited “panoramic view” or “wider field of view” images. Yet, the rejection still
relies on Yee’s image acquisition process for obtaining image frames.
Specifically, Owner contends that Yee performs photogrammetry, which
requires an object to be seen in at least two image frames, each image taken from
different locations in space and that replacing Dykes’ panoramic images with
Yee’s images would make this photogrammetric process impossible, because
panoramic views lack parallax. PO App. Br. 20–21; PO Reb. Br. 16–18.
We agree with Requester that Yee does not describe photogrammetry with
the stereo option as one of its key purpose. 3PR Resp. Br. 14–15 (citing Yee 391–
392). At one point, Yee states images “can be processed by . . . photogrammetric
software to provide latitude and longitude of selected image features in the
camera’s field of view.” Yee 391. Contrary to Owner’s contention (PO Reb. 16–
17), Yee describes a technique (i.e., “can be”) for obtaining latitude and longitude,
but not a requirement that obtaining latitude and longitude must be done in this
fashion. See id. Yee also describes this software as having an optional stereo
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

22
feature that supplies the Virtual Interface System (VIS) with photogrammetric
software to locate objects when supplied with a stereo option and stereo viewing.
Yee 392; 3PR Resp. Br. 15.
We further see no discussion in Yee that “the dimensions and locations of
objects in the view are calculated from pixel information” in photogrammetric
analysis or that one would not be able to “compute dimensions and locations from
a panoramic view because of the lack of parallax.” PO App. Br. 20; see generally
Yee. In other words, Yee does not discuss the need for parallax to compute
dimensions and locations. See generally Yee. Nor has Owner provided sufficient
evidence demonstrating that these features in Yee are required to perform
photogrammetry. See 3PR Resp. Br. 14 (quoting portions of PO App. Br. 20). The
record fails to support this contention adequately, essentially relying on arguments
of counsel.
Owner contends that Dykes fails to acquire images that create the panoramic
views at two different locations, but rather pans the camera about a fixed point and
thus fails to have parallax. PO Reb. 17 (citing Dykes 132). We are not persuaded.
As discussed above, Dykes is cited to teach how acquired image frames are used to
form “a panoramic view of the objects” as recited. Dykes also teaches or suggests
stitching images from different points of view together using the overlap feature to
form a continuous panorama. Dykes 135 (cited at 3PR Resp. Br. 15). Thus, when
combined with Yee, any purported parallax needed by Yee is provided by the
image frames that are acquired by Yee’s technique as proposed, the image frames
being used to stitch images to form the continuous panorama as taught by Dykes.
Even so, Dyke discloses that the panoramic photos can show – not acquire –
the view from a chosen location through 360 degree. Dykes 132. Additionally,
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

23
Dykes teaches both panning and touring across landscapes to acquire images.
Dykes 140.
Based on the evidence in the record, we determine the Examiner has not
erred in finding Yee and Dykes teach or suggest the features recited in claims 8,
17, 20, 33, 36, 67, and 70.
E. Claims 6, 18, 34, and 68

Claim 6 depends from claim 7 and further recites “wherein each composite
image is created based on a first one of the image frames acquired at a first point in
the trajectory and a second one of the image frames acquired at a second point in
the trajectory.” Claims 18, 34, and 68 recite similar limitations. Owner argues
these claims as a group, and we select claim 6 as representative. Many of the
arguments presented by Owner discussed above are applicable to this group of
claims, and we refer to our previous discussion.
Owner first argues that Dykes does not teach that the series of images
combined to produce a panorama (e.g., a type of composite image) are acquired
from multiple points in the trajectory. PO App. Br. 23. Notably, as stated
previously by the Examiner and Requester, the rejection does not rely on Dykes to
teach or replace the image acquisition features of the claim. See RAN 70; 3PR
Resp. Br. 16. Rather, the rejection relies on Yee to acquire the image frames at
different point in the trajectory. RAN 24–25 (citing Yee 389–392; Fig. 1). The
Examiner turns to Dykes specifically for its stitching feature to create the recited
“each composite image” that is based on different points in the trajectory as
acquired by Yee. See id. (citing Dykes 134–135; Fig. 2); see also 3PR Resp. Br.
18–20. Thus, whether Dykes obtains images by panning or by any other technique
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

24
is not relevant to this rejection as proposed, which relies on Yee to teach how the
images are acquired. PO App. Br. 23; PO Reb.17–18.
Owner further contends that Yee does not teach the recited feature of claim
6. PO App. Br. 23–24. However, as noted above, the rejection relies on both Yee
and Dykes’ teachings collectively to arrive at the claimed “composite image” of
claim 6. See 3PR Resp. Br. 19. In particular, Owner discusses that each of the 4-
views of Yee is taken from “the same point in the trajectory” and therefore is not
from a first and second point in the trajectory as recited. PO App. Br. 24.
We are not persuaded. 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–
390; see also 3PR Resp. Br. 18. This illustrates that the van moves to different
points in a trajectory while acquiring images. See id. Additionally, Yee teaches
that the multiple sequence images are used to obtain information about hidden
objects in a frame taken at a single viewpoint. See Yee 390; see also 3PR Resp.
Br. 18. Dykes is then cited to illustrate how these images taken at different points
could be stitched together to yield a single image. RAN 24–25; see also 3PR Resp.
Br. 18.
Also, Owner has not provided persuasive evidence that the 4-view example
described in Yee (e.g., “real estate and address, zoom, 4-view”) would include only
images at the same point in a trajectory. For example, one skilled in the art would
have recognized that the real estate view may be taken at a different point in a
trajectory than the address view or a front and back view may be taken a different
point in a trajectory than a curbside view.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

25
Based on the evidence in the record, we determine the Examiner has not
erred in finding Yee and Dykes teach or suggest the features recited in claims 6,
18, 34, and 68.

REQUESTER’S CROSS APPEAL
Requester appeals the Examiner’s confirmation of claim 28 and conclusion
that claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63, 75–84, and 86–88 are
patentable. 3PR App. Br. 2; RAN 1. Requester argues these claims as a group,
and we select claim 28 as representative.
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and further recites “the particular one of
the objects is a retail establishment, the method further comprising: accessing a
web page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the computer system a
display of the web page on the display screen,” which Requester refers to as “the
Web Page Limitations.” Requester first proposed to reject claim 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on Ishida and Dykes in the Request. Request 156–165 and
173–174 (cited in 3PR App. Br. 11). The Examiner adopted this rejection but later
withdrew the rejection upon further consideration. ACP 61–63, 66; RAN 62–64,
67. In particular, the Examiner states:
[A]s to claim 28, while Ishida at 30-31 teaches availability of
restaurant tables and further notes web retrieval is “... an interesting
research issue”, such is not a disclosure of actually accessing and
invoking a web page for a retail establishment in response to a user
selection of an object depicted in the first image.

RAN 64.
Concerning the disputed web page limitations, Requester contends that
Ishida provides web information “as part of the virtual tourist experience that
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

26
allows users to access the geographically indexed websites, such as to determine
the availability of restaurant tables available for dining.” 3PR App. Br. 15.
Requester further contends Ishida teaches web retrieval of data and displaying
them to the user and that “[i]t is common knowledge that web pages are retrieved
and displayed to users on a computer system's screen.” Id. at 16. Requester
concludes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Ishida
teaches the recitation, “invoking by the computer system a display of the web page
on the display screen.” Id. We are not persuaded.
Claim 28 first recites, “accessing a web page for the retail establishment”
and then further recites “invoking by the computer system a display of the web
page on the display screen.” Due to its antecedent basis, we find that the “the web
page on the display screen” refers the previously accessed “web page for the retail
establishment.” Moreover, claim 28 requires that the retail establishment web page
accessed is displayed on the display screen. This understanding is further
illustrated by the ’025 patent, which describes an example of an information icon
(e.g., 234 in Fig. 16) on a user interface functioning as hyperlink for retrieving and
displaying the web page, preferably as a separate browser window. The ’025
patent, 12:53–57. Although this describes a preferred embodiment of displaying a
separate browser window, this discussion also supports that one skilled in the art
would have understood invoking a display of the accessed web page on the display
screen by the computer system would include displaying the web page and not just
information from the web page. Thus, a broad but reasonable construction of the
disputed phrase includes invoking a display on the display screen of the web page
for the retail establishment accessed.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

27
Ishida teaches a social information infrastructure for a city (e.g., Kyoto) that
includes shopping, business, transportation, education, and other information. See
Ishida 25, Abstract. This structure integrates both World Wide Web archives and
real-time information related to the city. See id. Specifically, this information
includes bus stops and schedules, traffic status, weather conditions, as well as that
used to plan for daily shopping. Id. at 29–30. Ishida further notes that information
related to parking lots and restaurants are expected in the future. Ishida 30. Thus,
Ishida suggests displaying information related to retail establishment.
However, less clear from Ishida and the record is whether its computer
system displays the actual web page accessed to obtain the retail establishment
information on its display screen. Ishida discloses examples in Figures 5(a) and
(b) that show where web pages are distributed in the city or where bus stops are
located on a Kyoto map. See Ishida 29. As best understood, Ishida’s system
obtains information from a web page, such as bus stops in Kyoto, and presents that
information within its map. See id. As such and as the Examiner found, Ishida
fails to disclose or suggest invoking a display of the retail establishment’s web
page on the display screen as recited.
Requester further relies on common knowledge in concluding that “web
pages are retrieved and displayed to users on a computer system's screen.” 3PR
App. Br. 16. Even presuming this was common knowledge to an ordinarily skilled
artisan, this common knowledge alone does not provide a sufficient reason to apply
its teaching of retrieving and displaying of web pages to Ishida’s system.
Based on the record, we do not find error in the Examiner confirming claim
28. Claims 24, 26, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 75–84, and 86–88 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 28. Due to their dependency to claim 28 and for similar
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

28
reasons, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding claims 24, 26, 29, 37, 38, 41,
42, 75–84, and 86–88 patentable.
Requester contends the remaining appealed claims should be rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Ishida, Dykes, and Yee. 3PR App. Br. 19–40. Yee is
not cited to teach or suggest the above disputed feature. See id.; see also February
6, 2013 3PR Comments, pp. 37–49. As such, for the remaining claims, we refer to
the above discussion in determining no error in the Examiner’s conclusions. Also,
non-appealed claims 50 and 62 includes similar limitations to claim 28, and claims
44–48, 51–54, and 63 depend from claim 50 or 62. We likewise find no error in
the Examiner determining these claims patentable for the reasons previously stated.
The above discussions address all the claims on appeal and are dispositive,
rendering it unnecessary to reach the propriety of any remaining contentions. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Vivid
Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

IV. CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36,
56–60, 64–68, and 70–72 based on Yee and Dykes is affirmed.
We find no error in the Examiner’s decision to confirm claim 28 and find
claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63, and 75–88 patentable.

V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R.
§§ 1.956 and 41.79(e). In the event neither party files a request for rehearing
within the time provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

29
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must timely
serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

FOR PATENT OWNER:
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001

FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036

cu