Ex Parte 7805025 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

95000681 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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 02/29/2016
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
02/29/2016 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.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, Requester has submitted a timely
Request for Rehearing dated July 27, 20151 (hereafter the “Request”),
requesting rehearing of the June 26, 2015 opinion (hereafter the “Opinion”)

1 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.7. July 26, 2015 was a Sunday.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

2
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. Patent Owner timely submitted
Comments in Opposition to the Request for Rehearing (hereafter “PO
Comments”) on August 26, 2015.
We have reconsidered the Opinion in light of Requester’s discussions
in the Request and PO Comments. We find no errors. We therefore decline
to change our prior decision for the following reasons.
Notably,
The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in rendering the
Board’s opinion reflecting its decision. Arguments not raised in the
briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the
briefs are not permitted in the request for rehearing except as
permitted by paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.

37 C.F.R. §41.79(b)(1).
Requester specifically asserts that “the Board erred in determining
that Ishida does not teach the Web Page Limitations”2 (Request 3) under the
broadest reasonable interpretation. Request 2–8. Additionally, Requester
contends that, under either the allegedly proper claim construction or under

2 Requester states that the “Web Page Limitations” are “accessing a web
page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the computer system a
display of the web page on the display screen.” Request 2.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

3
the Board’s construction, Ishida teaches the Web Page Limitations. Request
3, 8–12.
“Claims are given ‘their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent
with the specification, in reexamination proceedings.’” In re Trans Texas
Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed. Circ. 2007) (quoting In re
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed.Cir.1984)). As noted in the Opinion,
we considered the Specification of the ’025 patent. We found “a broad but
reasonable construction of the disputed phrase [Web Page Limitations]
includes invoking a display on the display screen of the web page for the
retail establishment accessed.” Op. 26. Requester however asserts that we
unreasonably narrowed the construction of the Web Page Limitations based
on one embodiment in the ’025 patent. Request 3–4. We are not persuaded.
As the Opinion indicates, we considered claim 28 as a whole and
found antecedent basis for the phrase, “the web page” in the “invoking” step
of Web Page Limitations. That is, we stated
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.

Op. 26 (italics added). That is, claim 28 recites “accessing a web page for
the retail establishment” and “invoking by the computer system a display of
the web page on the display screen.” PO App. Br. 29, Claims App. (italics
added); see also PO Comments 6, 8.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

4
We further consulted the disclosure of the ’025 patent for the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the Web Page Limitations, consistent with the
specification of the ’025 patent. Id. (citing the ’025 patent 12:53–57). Our
claim construction thus is not “based solely on th[e column 12]
embodiment.” Request 3. Nor are we confining claim 28 to a single
embodiment found in the disclosure of the ’025 patent. See Trans Texas,
498 F.3d at 1299. Rather, we construed the Web Page Limitations
considering claim 28 as a whole and consistent with the ’025 patent’s
disclosure. Op. 26. Also, as Patent Owner indicates and as we agree,
claims, such as claim 28, do not encompass all disclosed embodiments found
in the disclosure of the ’025 patent. PO Comments 8.
Requester next argues that “[u]nder the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the Web Page Limitations require displaying information
relating to a retail establishment on a web page. The Web Page Limitations
do not require displaying a retail establishment’s own web page as under the
Board’s improperly narrow interpretation . . .” Request 3 (bolding omitted,
italics in original), 5. As noted in the Opinion, this argument was previously
presented by Requester and has not been overlooked. Op. 25–26 (noting
Requester contends “Ishida provides web information ‘as part of the virtual
tourist experience’” and that this discussion in Ishida teaches the “invoking”
step). Further, as discussed above, we maintain “that the ‘the web page on
the display screen’ [limitation that is part of the Web Page Limitations]
refers [to] the previously accessed ‘web page for the retail establishment.’”
Op. 26.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

5
We therefore disagree with Requester’s position reiterated in the
Request that the recitation to “the web page on the display screen” broadly
includes “information relating to a retail establishment” alone (Request 5
(bolding omitted)) without a display of the web page for the retail
establishment as recited in claim 28.
Requester enlists other portions of the ’025 patent’s disclosure to
support a broader claim construction. Request 5–8. Specifically, for the
first time on appeal, Requester discusses Figure 16 of the ’025 patent and
icons 234 purportedly disclosing two embodiments that read on claim 28.
See Request 5–7 (citing the 25 patent 12:48–56, Fig. 16). Requester asserts
we ignored or overlooked the “first embodiment” described in column 12,
lines 48 through 53. Request 7. We disagree.
First, we did not overlook this argument concerning Figure 16 and
icons 234 in the ’025 patent, for this position regarding the icons is being
asserted by Requester for the first time in the Request. Compare Request 5–
7 with 3PR App. Br. 15–16. Second, as noted above, claims, such as claim
28, need not encompass every embodiment discussed in the ’025 patent’s
disclosure, and the discussion at column 12 does not describe another
embodiment of the recited “invoking” step of the Web Page Limitations in
claim 28. See PO Comments 8. Third, we previously determined there is a
difference between displaying information related to a web site for a retail
establishment and invoking a display of the web page on the display screen
as recited in claim 28. See Op. 26–27 (stating “Ishida's system obtains
information from a web page, such as bus stops in Kyoto, and presents that
information within its map. See [Ishida 29]. . . . Ishida fails to disclose or
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

6
suggest invoking a display of the retail establishment's web page on the
display screen as recited.”).
Requester further contends that the icons in the ’025 patent represent
retail establishments. Request 7 (citing ’025 patent 12:17–47). We note that
this argument is also being raised for the first time on appeal and is not
permitted in the request for rehearing. Compare id. with 3PR App. Br.
15–16. Even so, as stated previously, icons that provide information from or
related to a web page do not “invoke[] . . . a display of the web page on the
display screen” as recited in claim 28. Rather, the related information in
Ishida— not the web page itself— is invoked as a display on the display
screen.
Requester even further contends that our claim construction is
inconsistent with and narrower than the Examiner’s. Request 4–5 (citing
RAN 73). Concerning claim 28, the Examiner similarly focuses on the
antecedent basis in claim 28 and states “Ishida does not disclose accessing a
web page for a retail establishment, nor does the reference disclose invoking
and displaying said web page [for retail establishment] on the display
screen.” RAN 73 (italics added). The Examiner further states that “Ishida
merely discloses ‘integrating WEB information’ . . ., though it is not
disclosed that this step . . . displays any restaurant web page as the claim
requires.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Requester’s assertions,
we determine our claim construction in the Opinion is consistent with the
Examiner’s.
Next, Requester asserts that Ishida teaches the Web Page Limitations.
Request 8–12. We addressed this argument in our previous Opinion. Op.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

7
25–27. Based on either the Board’s or the Requester’s claim construction,
Requester specifically contends that Ishida not only teaches displaying
information related to retail establishments but also displaying web pages
belonging to the retail establishments. Request 9–11. For support,
Requester asserts that people register their pages to their digital city and
shopkeepers can have their associated web page linked to the digital city
shown in Ishida. Request 10 (citing Ishida 28–293). Requester further
indicates Ishida teaches the shopkeeper can update its web page and Figure 5
that shows the locations of web pages, asserting these additional teachings in
Ishida teach displaying the retail’s establishment’s own web page. Request
10–11 (citing Ishida 28–29).
We find this argument unavailing. First, some of the arguments, such
as those concerning updating the web page and Figure 5 in Ishida, are being
raised for the first time in the Request. In the briefs, for example, Requester
discusses Ishida teaches (1) “providing Web information as part of the
virtual tourist experience that allows users to access the geographical
indexed websites” (3PR App. Br. 15), registering web pages (id.),
“integrat[ing] ‘information from various private companies such as the
availability of parking lots, restaurant tables, and so on” (id. (quoting Ishida
29–30)), and “allow[ing] users to ‘use real-time information to make a plan
for daily shopping’” (3PR App. Br. 15–16 (quoting Ishida 30)). Now,

3 As noted in the Opinion, Ishida is numbered pages 23 through 35. See Op.
4 and Request 1 n.1. Requester however numbers these pages sequentially
in the Request using pages 2, 3, and 6–8. Request 8–11; PO Comments 9 n.
2. For purposes of this opinion, we presume that page 2 corresponds to page
24, page 3 corresponds to page 25, and so on.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

8
Requester is contending further that shopkeepers can update their pages and
that the geographic locations associated with registered web pages display
the retail establishment’s web page. Request 10–12. Such new arguments
not raised in the briefs are not permitted and could not have been overlooked
or misapprehended. 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1).
To the extent the arguments were previously presented (Request 11
(discussing 3PR App. Br. 15–164)), we are not persuaded that such
information invokes “a display of the web page [for the retail
establishment]” as recited in claim 28 based on our claim construction as
discussed above and in our previous Opinion. Op. 27. That is, Ishida does
not articulate that the web page for a retail establishment is invoked as a
display. Rather, as understood, Ishida teaches presenting information
obtained from a web page— not the web page itself— within its maps. Id.
(citing Ishida 29); PO Comments 10–11.
Moreover, shopkeepers having their associated web page linked to the
digital city and having people register their pages to their digital city do not
establish sufficiently that a display of the shopkeepers web pages are
invoked as recited in claim 28. Rather, Ishida suggests linking information
on the web pages to its map in order to display the information. See Op. 27
(stating “Ishida’s system obtains information from a web page, such as bus
stops in Kyoto, and presents that information within its map. See [Ishida
29].”); see PO Comments 11–13.

4 Based on the quote, we presume Requester intended to refer to pages 15
and 16 of its brief and not page 12 as stated in the Request. Request 11.
Appeal 2015-001495
Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025

9
For the above reasons, Requester has not demonstrated that we
misapprehended or overlooked any points that were raised by Requester in
its briefs. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52.
We have considered the arguments raised by Requester in the
Request, but the arguments are not persuasive to find 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 confirming
claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63, 75–84, and 86–88 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

10
ack
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