7805025 et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 20212015001495 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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 06/01/2021 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 06/01/2021 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, ERIC B. CHEN, 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 This proceeding returns to us on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, vacating our previous decisions mailed June 26, 2015, February 29, 2016, and March 1, 2016. Vederi, LLC v. Google LLC, 813 F. App’x 499, 501, 505 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As background, Requester requested an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,805,025 B2 (“the ’025 patent”). The ’025 patent claims priority to several United States patent applications, the earliest of which is U.S. Application 09/758,717 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,895,126 B2), filed on January 11, 2001. Id., code (60). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), the term of the ’025 patent ended twenty (20) years from the filing date (i.e., January 11, 2001) of the earliest application (i.e., U.S. Application No. 09/758,717) for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120 and 121. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2013); see also the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2701(I). Thus, the ’025 patent expired on January 11, 2021.1 “No amendment may be proposed for entry in an expired patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(j);see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(j) (referring to § 1.530). That is, “[a]lthough the Office actions will treat proposed amendments [during a reexamination proceeding] as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued 1 The MPEP states the Office should “refuse to express to any person any opinion as to . . . the expiration date of any patent, except to the extent necessary to carry out: . . . (C) . . . reexamination proceeding to reexamine the patent.” MPEP § 1701 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (emphases added). Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 3 and published.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(k). Notably, “no amendment, other than the cancellation of claims, will be incorporated into the patent by a certificate issued after the expiration of the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(j). Accordingly, the reexamination proceeding will now be based on the original patent claims of the ’025 patent. Thus, Patent Owner submitted proposed amendments (see the January 2013 Amendment) to the claims, including new claims 75–88 (id. at 17–19), are improper at this time. See MPEP § 2666.01. On the other hand, and even though the ’025 patent has expired, any proposed claim amendments to cancel claim (i.e., claims 1, 13, 21–23, 25, 27, 30–32, 43, 49, 55, and 61 (see the January 2013 Amendment 4, 6, 8–9, 11–14)) are permitted. See MPEP § 2666.01. Additionally, claims 7, 11, 12, 19, 39, 40, 50, 62, 69, 73, and 74 are not subject to reexamination. See RAN 1 (box 1b).2 Based on the foregoing, the reexamination proceeding will now be based on original patent claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 33–38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–68, 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) mailed June 21, 2013, (2) the Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) mailed September 24, 2013, (3) the Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief (PO Appeal Br.) filed December 24, 2013, (4) the Requester’s Respondent Brief (3PR Resp. Br.) filed January 24, 2014, (5) the Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief (PO Reb. Br.) filed August 12, 2014, (6) the Requester’s Appeal Brief (corrected) (3PR Appeal Br.) filed January 24, 2014, (7) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed July 9, 2014, (8) Requester’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 CFR § 41.79 (3PR Rh’g Request) filed July 27, 2015, (9) Patent Owner’s Comments in Opposition to Requester’s Request for Rehearing (Aug. 2015 PO Comments) filed August 26, 2015, (10) Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 CFR §§ 41.77(b)(2) and 41.79 (PO Rh’g Request) filed July 28, 2015, and (11) Requester’s Comments in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (Aug. 2015 3PR Comments) filed August 27, 2015. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 4 and 70–72 of the ’025 patent. The noted claims include those requested by the Requester for reexamination and those examined sua sponte by the Office. See Request for Inter Parte Reexamination Transmittal Form 1 (box 9); see also June 21, 2013 Action Closing Prosecution 3 (citing MPEP § 2640). Upon review, we REVERSE the rejection adopted by the Examiner but present new rejections for claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 33–38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–68, and 70–72 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b). Related Matters The parties indicate the ’025 patent is the subject of litigation, Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., Civil No. 2:10-CV-07747 AK-CW (C.D. Cal.)3 and Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. CAFC-13-1057, and Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. CAFC-13-1296.4 PO Appeal Br. 2; 3PR Appeal Br. 1, Related Proceedings App. Additionally, the parties indicate that this appeal may be related to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,760 B2, 7,577,316 B2, and 7,813,596 B2, which are subject to inter partes reexamination having been assigned Control Nos. 95/000,682, 95/000,683, and 95/000,684 respectively. PO Appeal Br. 2; 3PR Resp. Br. 1. The opinions in these proceedings were similarly vacated. Vederi, 813 F. App’x 501. 3 This case was administratively closed on February 7, 2018. 4 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), reh’g en banc denied. A petition for writ of certiorari styled as Google, Inc. v. Verderi, LLC was filed on October 16, 2014, and denied on June 22, 2015. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 5 Parties Appeals Patent Owner appealed the decision in the RAN rejecting certain claims (e.g., 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 63–68, and 70–72) of the ’025 patent. PO Appeal Br. 3; RAN 1. Requester responded, and Patent Owner rebutted. See generally 3PR Resp. Br.; PO Reb. Br. Requester cross-appealed the Examiner’s determination that certain claims (e.g., 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, and 63) are patentable or confirmed. 3PR Appeal Br. 8, 40–41. Patent Owner did not respond. The Examiner’s Answer incorporated the RAN. Ans. 1. An oral hearing was conducted on May 13, 2015. The transcript of the oral hearing has been made of record. Another panel5 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed (1) the rejection of certain claims of the ’025 patent based on Yee and Dykes and (2) the non-adoption of rejections of other claims. June 26, 2015 Opinion (“2015 Opinion”) 28 (vacated). Both Requester and Patent Owner requested rehearing. See PO Rh’g Request; see also 3PR Rh’g Request. The panel declined to change the original decision. February 2016 Rh’g Op. 2, 9 (vacated); March 2016 Rh’g Op. 2, 8 (vacated). The Federal Circuit vacated our decisions. Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 501. In its opinion, the court construed three phrases found in the claims of the ’025 patent. Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 501–505. These phrases are: (1) “composite image” (e.g., claims 34 and 35), (2) “moving” within the phrase 5 The panel consisted of Administrative Patent Judges Pothier, Dillon, and Branch. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 6 “image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” (e.g., canceled claim 21), and (3) “web page for the retail establishment” within the phrase “accessing a web page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the computer system a display of the web page on the display screen” (e.g., claim 28). Id. The court specifically agreed with how the panel construed the phrase “composite image” (id. at 503), did not fully adopt how the panel construed the phrase “moving” (id. at 503–504), and disagreed with how the panel construed the phrase “web page for the retail establishment” (id. at 504–505). Given the claim construction addressed in Vederi, we reevaluate (1) the rejection of claims based on Yee and Dykes and (2) the non-adoption of rejections based on (a) Ishida and Dykes and (b) Ishida, Dykes, and Yee. Claimed Subject Matter Canceled claims 21 and patent claim 35 are reproduced below: Claim 21 (canceled) A method for enabling visual navigation of a geographic area via a computer system coupled to an image source, the computer system including one or more computer devices, at least one of the computer devices having a display screen, the method comprising: providing by the image source 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; receiving by the computer system a first user input specifying a first location in the geographic area; retrieving by the computer system a first image associated with the first location, the first image being one of the plurality of images provided by the image source; Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 7 providing by the computer system the retrieved first image for displaying on a first display area of the display screen; invoking by the computer system a display of a direction identifier for indicating the viewing direction depicted in the first image; receiving by the computer system a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location in the geographic area; determining by the computer system a second location based on the user specified navigation direction; retrieving by the computer system a second image associated with the second location, the second image being one of the plurality of images provided by the image source; and providing by the computer system the retrieved second image for updating the first image with the second image. 35. The method of claim 21, 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. The ’025 patent 17:43–18:9 (emphasis added), 19:11–14 (same). Prior Art Relied Upon The record relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Name Reference Date Lachinski6 US 5,633,946 May 27, 1997 6 Requester indicates that Lachinski was cited in its comments to rebut Patent Owner’s response and to explain how Yee’s four-view images are created. 3PR Appeal Br. 19–20 (citing ACP 68; RAN 72); 3PR Resp. Br. 9– 10; February 2013 3PR Comments 23–24. Patent Owner does not rebut this 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 8 Frank Yee, GPS & Video Data Collection In Los Angeles County: A Status Report, Position Location And Navigation Symposium, Proc. IEEE Position Location and Navigation 388–393 (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, 24 Computers, Env’t & Urb. Sys. 127–152 (2000) (“Dykes”). Adopted and Withdrawn Rejections The Examiner maintains the following proposed rejection, for which Patent Owner appeals: 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 15–61 PO Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner withdrew or did not adopt the following proposed rejections, for which Requester appeals: Reference(s) Basis Claims Ishida and Dykes § 103(a) 24, 26, 28, 29 3PR Appeal Br. 11–18; ACP 61–63, 66; RAN 62– 64, 67 Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 9 Ishida, Dykes, and Yee § 103(a) 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63 3PR Appeal Br. 19–32 3PR Appeal Br. 8, 11, 19. II. MAIN ISSUES ON APPEAL We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Patent 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 included in the brief 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 record, the main issues on appeal are: (1) As the rejection is currently presented, did the Examiner err in rejecting patent claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70– 72 of the ’025 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee and Dykes; and (2) Did the Examiner err in withdrawing the proposed rejection of patent claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ishida, Yee, and Dykes? III. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction As previously noted, the ’025 patent has expired. Because the ’025 patent has expired, we give the claims’ recitations “their ordinary and customary meaning” as would have been understood by “a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 10 AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also MPEP § 2258(I)(G) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316; Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (BPAI Dec. 23, 1986)). Additionally, “[c]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part’” (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc))), and “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis’” (id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996))). 1. “wherein the images are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” (the Image Frames Limitation7) of canceled claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 All the claims on appeal depend from one of canceled claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55, each of which includes the Image Frames Limitation. The Examiner found this phrase “merely requir[es] on overall movement along a trajectory, and capture of data either while in motion, or not while in motion, or both, meets the claim term.” RAN 6. Patent Owner did not discuss this limitation in its appeal brief (see generally PO Appeal Br.) but in its rebuttal brief, asserts that the phrase “moving” requires the image recording device to be in motion when acquiring image frames. See PO Reb. Br. 4–5, 7–8.8 Requester states that the Examiner properly construed the above recitation to include taking images “when a device is both in motion and is not in motion 7 Requester refers to this limitation as “the ‘Image Frames Limitation.’” 3PR Appeal Br. 2. 8 Notably, 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii) indicates that “[a]ny argument . . . not included in the brief permitted under this section or §§ 41.68 and 41.71 will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown.” Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 11 at the moment of image acquisition.” 3PR Appeal Br. 9 (quoting RAN 6 (stating “capture of data either while in motion, or not while in motion, or both, meets the claim term”)). The court in Vederi construed the term “moving” within the phrase “image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” found in claim 21 of the ’025 patent. Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 501, 503–504. The court found the term “cover[s] (1) image recording devices that acquire images while moving; (2) image recording devices that acquire images both while moving and while stationary,” but not “(3) image recording devices that acquire images only while stationary (although the image recording device moves along a trajectory at other times).” Id. at 504. Notably, the Vederi court applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” when construing the term “moving” and not the “ordinary and customary meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan” standard set forth in Phillips. Id. at 504 (stating “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation requires that the claim construction be reasonable in light of the specification”). Even so, the court considered the Specification in arriving at its construction. Id. (citing the ’025 patent 2:27–29, 3:47–49, 3:54–57, 4:50–53, 4:55–58, 5:18–19, 5:52–54, 6:58–61, Fig. 9). In particular, the Specification states “an image recording device moves along a path recording images of objects along the path” (the ’025 patent 2:27–29), “[m]ovement to the camera 10 is provided by a base, platform, or motor vehicle moving at an average speed of preferably about 20 miles/hour” (id. at 4:55–57), and “the camera 10 moves along the path” (id. at 5:18). See also id. at 4:52–53; 5:52–54, 6:58–61. The Vederi court also states “the Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 12 [S]pecification contemplates that some photos may be taken while the vehicle is stopped, for example, at an intersection.” Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 504 (citing the ’025 patent, Fig. 9). Upon consideration, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “moving” within the phrase “the images are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” in canceled claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55, when read in view of the Specification and as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, includes an image recording device that acquires images associated with image frames (1) while moving and (2) both while moving and while stationary as long as some images are associated with image frames acquired while the image recording device is moving. Additionally, and not addressed by the court in Vederi, Requester contends that the Examiner erred in construing the phrase, “moving along a trajectory” in claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 to require a specified or predetermined trajectory. 3PR Appeal Br. 2, 8–9 (citing RAN 8, 63). In particular, Requester argues that the Examiner failed to construe this phrase using the broadest reasonable construction. Id. at 8–11. Patent Owner agrees with the Examiner’s construction of “trajectory,” further arguing that “‘trajectory’ by definition refers to the path of a moving object, not a stationary object.” PO Reb. Br. 6 (quoting RAN 8, 72–73). Patent Owner provides two definitions to support its position. Id. at 5 (defining “trajectory” as “[t]he path followed by a projectile flying or an object Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 13 moving under the action of given forces”9 and “[t]he path of a moving particle or body, esp., such a path in three dimensions”10). 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 of a moving particle or body” (PO Reb. Br. 5 (citing The American Heritage Dictionary)). The disclosure of the ’025 patent also supports that a trajectory is synonymous with a path. See the ’025 patent, 3:56 (stating “trajectory/path”). Thus, the ordinary and customary meaning of “trajectory” in claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 consistent with the disclosure of the ’025 patent, includes a path, course or route of a moving object (i.e., the recited “image recording device”). We, however, disagree with the Examiner that the recited trajectory is “a determined path taken by the data gathering system.” RAN 73 (emphasis added); 3PR Appeal Br. 9 (quoting this passage in RAN). Specifically, we agree with Requester that the claim fails to limit the trajectory to one that is “determined” or “specified.” 3PR Appeal Br. 9. The ’025 patent provides an “illustration of a trajectory” in Figure 9 where a camera is moved along a 9 Trajectory, Oxford Dictionaries, available at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/trajector y (defining “trajectory” (def. 1)). PO Reb. Br., Evidence App., Ex. C. 10 Trajectory, The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd College ed. 1982) 1285 (defining “trajectory” (def. 1). PO Reb. Br., Evidence App., Ex. D. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 14 path (e.g., 110 including streets or blocks) making turns at intersections. The ’025 patent, 3:14–15, 7:58–60; Fig. 9. Arguably, this path of streets (e.g., 110) was determined prior to recording. See id. Yet, even in this example, we note that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that unpredictability or randomness, such as lane shifting that deviate from any purported, predetermined route, exists when moving along the path shown in Figure 9. See 3PR Appeal Br. 10. Also, the above-noted example in the Specification is just one example of a path found in the disclosure.11 The claim 21’s scope however is not limited to this “illustration” of a trajectory. See 3PR Appeal Br. 9; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“warn[ing] against confining the claims to th[e specific] embodiments [in the specification]”). In summary, we find that the phrase “wherein the images are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” in claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 requires the image recording device moves along a path, course or route, but that the path need not be predetermined or specified, and that the image recording device acquires “the plurality of images” that “are associated with the image frames acquired by an image recording device” (1) while moving and (2) both while moving and while stationary as long as some image frames are acquired while the image recording device is moving. 11 During a related litigation, Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv- 07747, of the ’025 patent, Patent Owner similarly provided an example of the phrase, “moving along a trajectory” in claim 21 of the ’025 patent to include moving “down a street” (see 3PR Appeal Br., Evidence App., Ex. EA-01, p. 21) without qualifying that the trajectory must be specified. See 3PR Appeal Br. 10. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 15 2. “wherein the first and second images are each a composite image” of claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68, and “wherein each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames” of claim 35 Patent Owner and Requester discuss the “composite image” limitations found in claims 1 and 7 (previously amended) of the ’025 patent. PO Appeal Br. 12–13; 3PR Resp. Br. 4. Currently, the patent claims on appeal reciting the “composite image” are claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68. Just like the Federal Circuit in Vederi, we select claims 34 and 35 as illustrative. See Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503 (citing the ’025 patent, 19:6–14). Claims 34 and 35 depend from claim 21. Claim 34 recites “the first and second images are each a composite image, 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” (the ’025 patent 19:6–10); claim 35 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” (id. at 19:11–14). Patent Owner disputes the claim construction of the particular phrase, “composite image,” finding the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonably broad. PO Appeal Br. 12–19; PO Reb. Br. 11–12. Patent Owner argues that The composite image presents a single new view of the objects in the geographical area. The single new 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. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 16 PO Appeal Br. 14. To support this position, Patent Owner cites to Figure 2 of the ’025 patent and composite image 40. Id. at 15–16. Patent Owner further contends that “[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. at 17. The Examiner, on the other hand, finds the phrase, “composite image,” includes combining four images into a single image. See RAN 68. Specifically, the Examiner incorporates the Requester’s Comments on pages 20 through 24 of the response filed August 21, 2013 (“Aug. 2013 3PR Comments”). Id. In these comments, Requester argues that Patent Owner is reading limitations improperly into the recitation “composite image” and that Yee (as further explained by Lachinski) combines four reduced images into a single image to generate a 4-view composite image using pixel processing. Aug. 2013 3PR Comments 20–23 (citing Yee 389; Lachinski 5:25–31, 13:40–46). Considering the disclosure, the ’025 patent discusses creating “composite images” by synthesizing images, image data, or image frames but does not address how the images are synthesized or combined. The ’025 patent, code (57), 2:22–24, 2:34–36, 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. Although the ’025 patent provides a preference as to how to create a composite image (see id. at 6:1–15), we decline to import this particular preference into the recitation “composite image,” which fails to recite the image is created “on a column- Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 17 by-column basis” (id. at 6:4) or any of the other features of this preferred image creation process (see id. at 6:1–15). Also, the plain and ordinary meaning of “composite” includes “something that is made up of different parts.”12 A single image consisting of data from four reduced image frames is something made from different parts (e.g., a composite). An ordinary meaning of (1) “synthesize”13 includes “to make (something) by combining different things” or “to combine (things) in order to make something new,” and (2) “combine,”14 includes “to unite into a single number or expression.” Thus, the phrase “composite image” consistent with the disclosure and its ordinary meaning should be construed to mean a single image created by combining different image data or by uniting image data. The Federal Circuit agreed with this claim construction in Vederi, determining the term “composite image” in claims 34 and 35 should be construed as “a single image created by combining different image data or by uniting image data.” Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503 (citing the ’025 patent, 19:6–14). The court further found the phrase “by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames” found in claim 35 specifies “the image may be achieved by combining or uniting image data, meaning at the level of pixel data.” Id. The court also stated “[w]e are not persuaded by Vederi’s argument” that limits the claimed “‘composite image’ to ‘a new image . . . 12 Composite (noun), Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th ed.), available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/composite. 13 Synthesize, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th ed.), available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synthesize. 14 Combine, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th ed.), available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/combine (def. 1c). Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 18 that depicts a single new view (from a single location) of the objects in the geographical area that is different from any of the views depicted in any one of the image frames from which the composite image is created.’” Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503 (quoting both the ’025 patent, 5:66–6:1 and Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Accordingly, the recited “a composite image” in claims 34 and 35 do not require the composite image to be an image having a single view from one location, a new view, a different view, or a wider field of view than any acquired image frame as argued by Patent Owner. Stated differently, “although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit] ha[s] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citing Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906–08 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We thus will not confine the definition of the phrase, “composite image” to the exact representations in the Specification. Regarding claim 35, Patent Owner also states “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would further understand” the phrase “composite image is created ‘by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames’ . . . to mean ‘an image formed by combining two or more image frames at the pixel level.’” PO Appeal Br. 14. For support, Patent Owner refers to a “Joint Construction of Agreed Terms, Joint Exhibit C”15 which is listed in its 15 This Joint Construction appears to be part of the district court proceeding, Vederi, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 2:10-CV-07747 (C.D. Cal.). Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 19 Appeal Brief’s Evidence Appendix as item “1” (id. at 40) and described as “Exhibit A hereto” (id. at 14 n.1) However, the Joint Construction cannot be located in the Evidence Appendix or in any other part of the briefing. In an event, Patent Owner asserts “Patent Owner and Requester agreed that ‘a composite image created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames’ mean[s] ‘an image formed by combining two or more image frames at the pixel level.’” Id. Patent Owner also argues “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that this requires that the 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. at 15 (citing the ’025 patent 5:67–6:1). Patent Owner discusses the ’025 patent’s Figure 2, as well as the ’025 patent’s Figure 16 and U.S. Provisional Application 60/238,490’s Figure 11, as a composite image having “pixel values that are computed from pixel values of each of the image frames from which the composite image is created.” Id. at 16; id. at 17 (reproducing the ’025 patent, Fig. 16 and U.S. Provisional Application 60/238,490, Fig. 11). Claim 35 requires “processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames.” But, this recitation does not recite how the pixel data of the images frames are processed, such that pixel values of the composite image are computed from pixel values of two or more image frames. We stress that the ’025 patent states a preference for the composite image to be created by extracting image data from each image frame on a column-by-column basis. See the ’025 patent, code (57), 6:1–15, Fig. 2. Consistent with Phillips, we will not confine the claims to the specific embodiments described in the Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 20 disclosure. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. When applying the plain meaning of “processing” (e.g., “Computers To perform operations on (data)”)16 as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, claim 35 requires no more than “combining or uniting image data, meaning at the level of pixel data.” Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503. Accordingly, the phrase “composite image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 means a single image created by combining different image data or by uniting image data and the further limitation of “each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames” in claim 35 means a single image that may be created by combining or uniting image data from a plurality of image frames at the level of pixel data. 3. “accessing a web page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the computer system a display of the web page on the display screen” (“the Web Page Limitations”17) of claim 28 Claim 28 ultimately depends from claim 21 and recites, in pertinent part, “accessing a web page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the computer system a display of the web page on the display screen.” The ’025 patent, 18:46–49. Patent Owner argues the proper construction for the “web page for the retail establishment” consistent with the ’025 patent’s disclosure is one that is “owned and controlled by a business establishment.” Aug. 2015 PO Comments 7; see id. at 5–9 (citing the ’025 patent 12:17–19, 12:48–56, Fig. 16 Processing, The American Heritage Dictionary, available at https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=process (def. 3 (tr. v.)). 17 Requester refers to this recitation as “the ‘Web Page Limitations.’” 3PR Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 21 16). Requester does not offer an explicit claim construction for this phrase but contends that Ishida provides access to web information that allows user to access indexed websites (e.g., determine restaurant table availability) and thus teaches the Web Page Limitations. See 3PR Appeal Br. 3, 15–16. According to the court in Vederi, “[t]he Board limited a ‘web page for the retail establishment’ to web pages belonging to, owned by, or operated by the retail establishment.” Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 504 (citing Google Inc. v. Vederi, LLC, No. 95/000,681, 2016 WL 792285, at *2–3 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2016)). The court found this characterized interpretation as “unduly narrow.” Id. The court indicated “an online Yellow Pages directory may be a web page for a retail establishment in that it shows particular information about the retail establishment for the convenience of a consumer” (id. at 505) and further states “a web page, such as an online Yellow Pages directory, may be associated with a particular retail establishment, but not owned or controlled by that establishment” (id. (citing the ’025 patent 12:53–56)). The Specification does not describe an online Yellow Pages directory but does discuss “business establishments” (the ’025 patent 12:48), stating that “the establishment” can be “associated with a particular Web page” (id. at 12:53–54). Consistent with the Specification, an ordinary meaning of the recited “web page for the retail establishment” as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have included a web page in which a business or retail establishment is associated. See id. This web page thus may include more than those belonging to, owned by, or Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 22 operated by the retail establishment. See id.; see also Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 504. Accordingly, although the court did not provide an explicit claim construction for the phrase “web page for the retail establishment” found in the Web Page Limitations, we understand the ordinary meaning of this phrase to include a web page that (1) shows particular information about the retail establishment or (2) is associated with a particular retail establishment. B. Yee and Dykes Claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 34, 36, 56–60, 64–68, and 70–72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee and Dykes. RAN 15–61. This rejection was presented on the claims as amended and prior to the ’025 patent’s expiry. We reverse this rejection given the particular circumstances of this proceeding, which include that the dependencies of the claims have changed since the ’025 patent’s expiry, the Federal Circuit provided intervening claim construction for claim terms in the ’025 patent, and the claims are now construed under Phillips as opposed to the broadest reasonable construction. Compare Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13, with Personalized Media Commc’ns, 952 F.3d at 1340. However, we present a new ground of rejection for claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 24, 26, 29, 33–38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–68, and 70– 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee and Dykes pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b). Each of the above claims ultimately depends from one of canceled claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 and thus, each claim includes the limitations found in one of claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55. We start our discussion by addressing claim 33, which depends from canceled claim 21. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 23 1. Claim 33 We adopt the findings and conclusions discussed in the Non-Final Office Action and the Request. See Nov. 2012 Non-Final Act. 11–14 (citing Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 132, 136–42, 144–45, Fig. 6; Request 120–54, Claim Chart CC-D); see also Request 120–32 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Figs. 4, 6; Ex. CC-D; Ex. OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, 121:1–3; Ex. OTH-D, 17:7–9), 152 (citing Dykes 132, 139–40), Ex. CC-D 1–11, 24–25 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 132, 137, 139–41, 145, Fig. 6; Exs. OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, OTH-D, 17:7–9). We emphasize that Yee teaches a vehicle moves and acquires image frames by an image recording device at a certain rate per second. Specifically, Yee teaches recording images of streets, objects, and surroundings (e.g., streets and their names, power poles, street lights, traffic signals, guard rails, houses, house addresses, speed limits, and street signs) with cameras (Yee 389), not just at the same point, but also at a rate of 30 frames per second as the GeoVan travels along streets (id.). See also id. at 388–90. This illustrates that Yee’s van moves to different points in a path or route while acquiring images using image recording devices (e.g., cameras) or its “images are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” as claim 21, from which claim 33 depends, recites. See id. Our findings and conclusions are also consistent with how this limitation (i.e., the Image Frames Limitations) is construed in Section (III)(A)(1). Additionally, combining Dykes’s teachings with Yee would have provided “an excellent source of current micro-, meso- and micro-scale information” (Dykes 132), provided “educational aims” (id. at 134), and Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 24 been “useful . . . when evaluating sites, buildings, and characteristics of the neighbourhood surrounding them” (id.). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include Dykes’s teachings in Yee to provide these noted benefits and to improve Yee’s system that records images of infrastructure (e.g., streets, power poles, street lights, houses, house addresses, and street signs) (Yee 389) in all four directions (id. at 390). See also 3PR Resp. Br. 13–14 (discussing using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way). Also, combining Dykes’s teaching related to displaying symbols, which include dots and arrows on a map (Dykes 139–41, Figs. 4, 6), with the images of Yee’s system would have predictably yielded “invoking . . . a display” that provides dots and arrows18 (e.g., “direction identifier for indicating the viewing direction depicted in” an image) in Yee’s visual interface to help with orientation and would have improved Yee’s visual interface by permitting the user to navigate within the virtual space and between recognized features. See Dykes 137, 139–41, Fig. 4; see also Request 122 (stating the combination would have “provide[d] arrows in Yee’s visual interface system (VIS) to help user orientation”); 3PR Resp. Br. 13–14 (stating applying Dykes’s teaching to improve on Yee’s system by displaying arrows to assist with navigating across the virtual space and creating a real sense of space within the virtual environment). 18 The ’025 patent describes “a direction identifier” to include “a dot or an ‘X’ to identify the side of the street being viewed” or “[a]lternatively, an arrow may be placed near the current location identifier 228 to identify the current viewing direction.” The ’025 patent 13:6–9. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 25 Regarding the recited “panoramic view of the objects” in claim 33, Dykes teaches how its acquired image frames are used to form a panorama that provides a view of objects within the location that the image is taken. Dykes 134–35, Fig. 2. Specifically, Dykes teaches stitching images from different points within a location together using an overlap feature to form a panorama. Dykes 135, cited in 3PR Resp. Br. 15; see id. at 134–35. For example, Dykes’s Figure 2 teaches and shows nine image frames (upper left) are taken and stitched together with overlap (upper right) to form “a continuous panorama” (bottom). Id. at 135, Fig. 2. Thus, Dykes’s process of forming panoramas, when combined with Yee, teaches and suggests each of its images can “provide a panoramic view of the objects at respectively” its “locations” as claim 33 recites. See 3PR Resp. Br. 16–17 (discussing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to stitch Yee’s acquired images that overlap as Dykes teaches, to provide panoramic images of a geographic area traveled by Yee’s GeoVan or “a panoramic view of objects” at locations as claim 33 recites). Based on Patent Owner’s understanding of the term “moving” in claim 21 as discussed in Section (III)(A)(1), Patent Owner argues “Dykes does not teach ‘image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory’ as recited in claim 21” (and similarly recited in claims 1, 13, 43, and 55). PO Reb. Br. 13–14. This argument is unavailing because as noted above, Yee teaches this feature. Yee 389–90, cited in Request 126. That is, as emphasized above, Yee teaches a van (e.g., the noted “GeoVan”) moves along a street and acquires image frames along the street using cameras as the van moves. See id. at 388–90. Dykes thus need not teach or Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 26 suggest the disputed “moving” feature in claim 33, which depends from canceled claim 21. In its request for rehearing, Patent Owner argues that Dykes does not disclose “displaying a direction identifier” and “receiving a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location” recited in claim 21, from which claim 33 depends. PO Rh’g Request 4–6. Patent Owner contends the word “arrow” in Dykes at best discusses a directional view. Id. at 5–6 (citing Dykes 137, 141, Fig. 4). Patent Owner also argues Yee and Dykes do not teach “determining a second location based on the user specified navigation direction” as claim 21 recites. Id. at 6–7. Specifically, Patent Owner argues dragging, navigating, and panning as Dykes teaches does not disclose this feature but merely discloses changing a view. Id. at 6–7 (discussing Dykes 136–37, 139–41, 145). We agree with Requester that these arguments are untimely raised. See Aug. 2015 3PR Comments 5–6, 8. In any event, we adopt Requester’s remarks in this regard. Id. at 6–8 (citing Dykes 139–41, Fig. 4; Request 5–6; RAN 17). Dykes discusses displaying arrows in portions of panoramic image (e.g., arrows in “VFC panorama:htd-018” and “VFC panorama:mark 58” of Figure 4) in a viewer. Dykes 137, 141, Fig. 4. Dykes also explains a user can select another section of the image (e.g., moving the cursor right or left in the viewer around an arrow or “receiving . . . a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location in the geographic area” as claim 21 recites) and based on this selection, Dykes teaches processing a new image at another location according to the selected section. See id. at 137–39, Fig. 3. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 27 Patent Owner also argues that Yee and Dykes “are opposite in nature” and have “cross-purposes.” PO Appeal Br. 19–20. Patent Owner asserts that combining 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. Patent 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 Patent Owner acknowledges, “each [of Yee and Dykes] teaches how to capture and visualize a geographic area.” PO Appeal Br. 19. Thus, the references are related to each other in this regard, and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked at their respective teachings concerning collecting, creating, and displaying images in a geographic area. See 3PR Resp. Br. 12–13 (citing Yee 391–92, Abstract; Dykes 127, 135, 146; RAN 11, 15) (discussing how both Yee and Dykes relate to collecting images of a geographic area and displaying images within an interface). Also and importantly, the 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. See Request, Evidence App., Ex. CC-D, pp. 2–4 (citing Yee 389–90, 392); 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 Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 28 differences between how Yee and Dykes collects or acquires image data do not correspond to how the teachings are combined in the rejection. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions (PO Appeal Br. 19), one skilled in the art would have recognized the above-noted references’ similarities and would not immediately have found the references have cross-purposes. For example, Yee teaches creating a visual interface of a city, permitting a user to point at specific locations within a map, and providing images of the selected location. Yee 388, 391–92; see also Request 122 (discussing Yee as “a system for creating a navigable digital city”); 3PR Resp. Br. 12–13 (stating “Yee discloses a Visual Interface System (VIS) that displays the video images of the geographic area to the user” and “a user can point at a street segment or specific location on a computerized map to display the video images for that selected segment”); RAN 15–17 (noting the same features). Dykes similarly teaches mapping views within a geographic area, providing direction views (e.g., through its dots and arrows) within the area to assist a user with orientation, and including interactive symbols at specific locations that provide further images when selected. Dykes 137, 139–41, 146; see also Request 122; 3PR Resp. Br. 13 (stating “Dykes promotes teachings that are analogous to those of Yee”) (citing Dykes 127, 135, 146); RAN 11 (stating “Dykes discloses a user terminal for visual navigation of a geographic area via a computer system”), 17 (stating “Dykes discloses a user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location” and “the user may drag, navigate and pan the field of view”). Thus, as previously discussed, combining Dykes’s teaching with Yee would have predictably yielded a visual interface that provides arrows and symbols within Yee’s Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 29 visual interface to help with orientation and would have improved Yee’s visual interface by permitting the user to navigate within its space and between recognized features. See Dykes 139; see also Request 122; 3PR Resp. Br. 13–14. We further disagree with Patent Owner that there is a teaching away from modifying Yee as proposed or that including Dykes’s teaching would defeat Yee’s key purpose. PO Appeal Br. 20–21. Patent 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. Patent Owner contends that Yee performs photogrammetric analysis, which requires an object to be seen in at least two image frames, each image taken from different locations in space, and that replacing Yee’s images with Dykes’s panoramic images would make this photogrammetric process impossible, because panoramic views lack parallax. Id. at 20–21; PO Reb. Br. 16–18. Yee does not describe photogrammetry with the stereo option as one of its key purpose. Yee 391–92, cited in 3PR Resp. Br. 14–15 (noting photogrammetric software is optional). 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 Patent Owner’s contention (PO Reb. Br. 16–17), Yee describes a technique (i.e., “can be”) for obtaining latitude and longitude, but not require that the obtained latitude and longitude must be done in this fashion. See Yee 391. Yee describes this software as having an optional stereo feature that supplies the Virtual Interface System (VIS) with Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 30 photogrammetric software to locate objects when supplied with a stereo option and stereo viewing. Id. at 392; see also 3PR Resp. Br. 15 (noting the same). 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” as argued. PO Appeal Br. 20. In other words, Yee does not discuss the need for parallax to compute dimensions and locations. See generally Yee. Nor has Patent Owner provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that these features in Yee are required to perform photogrammetry. See 3PR Resp. Br. 14 (quoting portions of PO Appeal Br. 20). The record fails to support Patent Owner’s contention adequately, essentially relying on arguments of counsel. Assuming, without agreeing, that Yee requires parallax and its photogrammetric analysis involves calculating objects’ dimensions and locations as Patent Owner purports, we agree with Requester that Dykes expressly teaches capturing objects in multiple frames and that some of these objects are located in two frames that overlap when the images are stitched together into a panorama. Dykes 135, Fig. 2, cited in 3PR Resp. Br. 15. Moreover, Dykes shows in Figure 2 an example where its stitching technique involves some type of computation of the objects’ locations and dimension in order to combine and size the images together properly into the resulting, continuous panorama as shown. See id., Fig. 2. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 31 In the rebuttal brief, Patent Owner argues for the first time 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. Br. 17 (citing Dykes 13219). We are not persuaded. As discussed above, Dykes is cited to teach how the acquired image frames as taught by Yee are used to form “a panoramic view of the objects” as recited. Dykes also teaches or at least suggests stitching images from different points together using the overlap feature to form a continuous panorama. Dykes 135, cited in 3PR Resp. Br. 15; see id. at 134–35. Thus, when combined with Yee, which acquires image frames at different locations as previously discussed, any purported parallax needed by Yee is provided by the image frames that are acquired by Yee’s technique, and the image frames are used to stitch images to form the continuous panorama as taught by Dykes. Concerning Patent Owner’s contention that modifying Yee would amount to extra work and greater expense for no apparent reason (see PO Appeal Br. 21–22), we disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments are misplaced, focusing on modifying Yee’s image gathering approach with Dykes’s image acquisition technique, which is not how the rejection combines the teachings of Dykes and Yee. See RAN 70 (stating “Yee teaches all of the claim with the exception of a direction identifier and specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location for determining the second location”); see also 3PR Resp. Br. 16 (noting “Yee and Dykes may be combined to arrive at the 19 Dyke discloses that the panoramic photos can show—not acquire—the view from a chosen location through 360 degree. Dykes 132. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 32 claimed subject matter . . . without replacing Yee’s image acquisition process with that of Dykes”). Additionally, as Requester indicates, the arguments presented by Patent Owner related to greater expense and greater work are essentially unsupported by evidence other than counsel’s assertions. See 3PR Resp. Br. 14–15. These kind of 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). We further adopt Requester’s remarks related to Patent Owner failing to provide persuasive evidence that Dykes cannot be combined with Yee. See 3PR Resp. Br. 14–17. In particular, Dykes is cited to teach displaying dots and arrows in a user interface (e.g., displaying a direction identifier) as well as linked symbols, which permit the user to select an alternative image/view (e.g., receiving an input specifying a navigation direction as recited in the claims), and to include these features in Yee’s interface to improve its system as previously discussed. See Dykes 134, 136–137, 139– 142, 145, cited in RAN 16–1720; see also 3PR Resp. Br. 13–14. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized to include Dykes’s teaching related to dots, arrows, and symbols in a display interface into Yee 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 virtual environments.” 3PR Resp. Br. 13 (citing Dykes 139). Similarly, “Dykes explicitly and specifically explains how the user is enabled to navigate locations by visualizing the location spatially as 20 The Examiner also cites to Request 120–54, 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 33 represented by symbols (icons) on the map that link the map to images. Dykes at 139-140.” RAN 17, cited in 3PR Resp. Br. 13. In other words, Dykes teaches a known technique for navigating and visualizing images of a geographic area within an interface, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that Dykes’s teaching would have improved on Yee’s system in the same manner. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In summary, the record provides an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Yee and Dykes as proposed and to justify the obviousness conclusion. 2. Claims 17 and 67 Claim 17 depends from canceled claim 13 but includes limitations similar to those in claim 33; claim 67 depends from canceled claim 55 but also includes limitations similar to those in claim 33. Like claim 33, we adopt the findings and conclusions discussed in the Non-Final Office Action and the Request for those limitations in claims 17 and 67 similar to canceled claim 21 from which claim 33 depends. See Nov. 2012 Non-Final Act. 11– 14 (citing Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 132, 136–42, 144–45, Fig. 6; Request 120–54, Claim Chart CC-D); see also Request 120–32 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Figs. 4, 6; Exs. CC-D, OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16– 20, 121:1–3, OTH-D, 17:7–9), 152 (citing Dykes 132, 139–40), Claim Chart CC-D 1–11, 24–25 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 132, 137, 139–41, 145, Fig. 6; Exs. OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, OTH-D, 17:7–9). We additionally adopt the Examiner’s comments in the Action Closing Prosecution directly related to claims 17 and 67. See ACP 34–36 Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 34 (addressing claim 17) (citing Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 134–37, 139–42, 145, Figs. 2, 6; Request 122), 52–54 (citing the same) (addressing claim 67). Lastly, claims 17 and 67 are rejected based on the additional findings and conclusion presented above for claim 33 related to similar claim recitations. As for the arguments presented by Patent Owner, we are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 33. 3. Claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 Claim 6 depends from canceled claim 1; claim 18 depends from canceled claim 13; claims 34 and 35 depend from canceled claim 21; claim 68 depends from canceled claim 55. Like claim 33, we adopt the findings and conclusions discussed in the Non-Final Office Action and the Request for those limitations in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 similar to claim 21, from which claim 33 depends, and claim 35. See Nov. 2012 Non-Final Act. 11– 14 (citing Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 132, 136–42, 144–45, Fig. 6; Request 120–54, Claim Chart CC-D); see also Request 120–32 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Figs. 4, 6; Exs. CC-D, OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16– 20, 121:1–3, OTH-D, 17:7–9), 153–54 (citing Yee 389), Claim Chart CC-D 1–11, 25–26 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Fig. 6; Exs. OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, OTH-D, 17:7–9). Each of claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 recites “the first and second images are each a composite image”; claims 6, 18, 34, and 68 further recite “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”; claim 35 further Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 35 recites “wherein each composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames.” As discussed in Section (III)(A)(2), the phrase “composite image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 means a single image created by combining different image data or by uniting image data and claim 35 requires a single image that may be created by combining or uniting image data from a plurality of image frames at the level of pixel data. As explained below, Yee teaches or suggests these limitations under their ordinary and customary meanings as well as the recitation “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” found in claims 6, 18, 34, and 68. Yee addresses collected data made available with its product. Yee 389. The data includes provided various views, including “curbside view, front and back,” “street view, front and back,” “real estate view left and right,” “real estate and addresss [sic] zoom, 4-view,” and “composites of them.” Id. Yee explicitly discloses “composites” (id.; see RAN 71) and “them” refers back to the other discussed views, including a front and back curbside view, a front and back street view, and a left and right real estate view. Thus, Yee teaches creating “composites” of these various views. For example, a composite may combine or unite image data from (1) the curbside view and the street view or (2) two different street views to produce the disclosed “composite[] of them.” Yee 389. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized Yee’s disclosed “composites” would have involved combining or uniting the noted views at the level of pixel data Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 36 in some manner so as to form the composites available to the user in Yee. See id. Patent Owner contends that Yee does not teach the recited feature of claim 6. PO Appeal Br. 23–24. More particularly, Patent 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 Appeal Br. 24; see PO Rh’g Request 8 (arguing all the images in Yee “are captured at the same time and from the same location” when created the 4-view image). We are not persuaded. First, the “composite of them” is separate from the “4-view” in Yee. Yee 389 (stating “real estate and addresss [sic] zoon, 4-view; and composites of them” (emphasis added)). Second, Patent Owner has not provided persuasive evidence that the 4-view example described in Yee (e.g., “real estate and addresss [sic] zoom, 4-view” (Yee 389)) would include only images at the same point in a trajectory. For example, one skilled in the art would have recognized that (1) the real estate view would be taken at a different point along a path than the address view, (2) a front view would be taken at a different point along a path than left view, and (3) two different street views would be taken at different points along a path. See id. Third, Yee teaches acquiring images, not just at the same point, but also at a rate of 30 frames per second as the GeoVan travels as fast as 40–50 miles/hour. Id. at 389–392; see also 3PR Resp. Br. 18 (citing Yee 389–90). Yee thus illustrates that the van moves to different point along a trajectory (e.g., a path along a street) while acquiring images and thus “each composite image” can be “created based on . . . image frames acquired at” different “points in Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 37 the trajectory” as claims 6, 18, 34, and 68 recite. Fourth, Yee states “an ideal transportation data collection system should be able to collect data which will . . . locate items hidden by trees or buildings, looking comprehensively” (Yee 390 (underlining omitted)), further suggesting that the multiple sequence images in Yee are taken at different vantage points in order to obtain more information about hidden objects in a frame/view. See also 3PR Resp. Br. 18 (quoting Yee 390). Turning to the specific discussion of the “4-view” example in Yee, Patent Owner argues this is not “a composite image” as recited. PO Appeal Br. 18 (referring to “Requester’s remarks” submitted on August 21, 2013). Patent Owner produces “[a]n example of a Yee’s 4-view.” Id. Yet, as Requester notes, the example illustrated on page 18 of Patent Owner’s brief is “neither found in Yee nor Lachinski”21 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 either Yee or Lachinski, 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 Patent Owner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that the images in all of Yee’s 4-views would be “clearly delineated by blank spaces” as argued. PO Appeal Br. 18–19. 21 Lachinski is a patent issued to GeoSpan Corporation on May 27, 1997. “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 38 Nevertheless, some similarities exist between what is shown in Patent 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. Lachinski 5:25–31, Fig. 3. This supports that the “4-view” discussed in Yee (Yee 389) can include four images, one in each of four corners that is reduced in size. See Lachinski 5:25–31, Fig. 3. Lachinski also states the generator produces “a single video image” that includes four reduced size images. Id. Yee teaches and suggests that data from the four images, which includes its pixel data, are used to create the single image frame with 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,” as explained in Lachinski (Lachinski 5:25–31), is a single image frame that is made up of different parts or images (e.g., image data from multiple views) and unites pixel data from each of the different view image frames (e.g., processes image data from image frames at the level of pixel data) into a single image. Based on the foregoing discussions, Yee teaches or at least suggests two examples (e.g., “composites of them” image and “4-view” image) of “the first and second images are each a composite image, wherein each Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 39 composite image is created by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames” as claim 35 recites and “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” as claims 6, 18, 34, and 68 recite. Moreover, Dykes teaches and suggests creating images that “are each a composite image” because of the reasons similar to those previously discussed when addressing claim 33. That is, Dykes teaches creating panoramas, which are single images created by combining and uniting different image data (e.g., the nine images in the upper left in Figure 2) through a stitching technique. See Dykes 134–36, Fig. 2. Dykes thus illustrates how images taken at different points can be stitched together to yield a single, composite image. See RAN 25 (citing Dykes 134–35, Fig. 2); see also 3PR Resp. Br. 18 (citing Dyke 135). Moreover, “Patent Owner admits that the panoramas in Dykes are composite images.” PO Appeal Br. 19 (stating “Patent Owner admits that the panoramas of Dykes are composite images”). We refer to the previous discussion for more details related to Dykes’s teachings for creating panoramas, for a motivation to combine this teaching with Yee, and for Patent Owner’s arguments in this regard (PO Appeal Br. 23–24). The rejection therefore relies on both Yee and Dykes’s teachings collectively to arrive at the claimed “composite image” of claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68. See 3PR Resp. Br. 19 (noting Patent Owner attacks Yee and Dykes individually). Patent Owner argues that Dykes does not teach that the series of images combined to produce a panorama (e.g., a type of composite image) Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 40 are acquired from multiple points in the trajectory. PO Appeal Br. 23. As stated previously, the rejection does not rely on Dykes to teach the image acquisition features of the claim or to replace Yee’s teaching in this regard. See RAN 70; see also 3PR Resp. Br. 16. That is, the rejection relies on Yee to acquire the image frames at different points in the trajectory. See RAN 24–25 (citing Yee 389–392; Fig. 1). The rejection 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; Aug. 2015 3PR Comments 9 (noting the rejection relies on Yee and Dykes). Thus, whether Dykes obtains images by panning or by any other argued technique (PO Appeal Br. 23; PO Reb.Br. 17–18) is not pertinent to the rejection as proposed, which relies on Yee to teach how the images are acquired. 4. Claims 8, 20, 36, and 70 Claim 8 depends from canceled claim 1; claim 20 depends from canceled claim 13; claim 36 depends from canceled claim 21; claim 70 depends from canceled claim 55. Like claim 33, we adopt the findings and conclusions discussed in the Non-Final Office Action and the Request for those limitations in claims 8, 20, 36, and 70 similar to claim 21, for which claim 33 depends. See Nov. 2012 Non-Final Act. 11–14 (citing Yee 389– 92, Fig. 1; Dykes 132, 136–42, 144–45, Fig. 6; Request 120–54, Claim Chart CC-D); see also Request 120–32 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Figs. 4, 6; Exs. CC-D, OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, 121:1–3, Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 41 OTH-D, 17:7–9), Claim Chart CC-D 1–11 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Fig. 6; Exs. OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, OTH-D, 17:7–9). Each of claims 8, 20, 36, and 70 recites “wherein the first and second images each depict a wider field of view than is depicted in any one of the image frames.” For the reasons similar to those discussed above when addressing claims 17, 33, and 67, Dykes teaches it images each depict a wider field of view (e.g., stitched panoramas, such as the one shown in Figure 2) than any one image frame (e.g., frames shown in Figure 2). See Dykes 135, Fig. 2. Moreover, Patent Owner admits Dykes discloses images with “wider fields of view.” PO Appeal Br. 23 (stating “Patent Owner does not deny that Dykes discloses composite images depicting panoramic views or wider fields of view.”). We refer to the previous discussion for more details related to Dykes’s teachings for creating panoramas, a motivation to combine this teaching with Yee, and Patent Owner’s arguments in this regard (PO Appeal Br. 22–24). 5. Claims 2–5, 9, 10, 14–16, 24, 26, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51– 54, 56–60, 63–66, 71, and 72 Claims 2–5, 9, and 10 ultimately depend from canceled claim 1; claims 14–16 ultimately depend from canceled claim 13; Claims 24, 26, 29, 37, 38, 41, and 42 ultimately depend from canceled claim 21; claims 44–48 and 51–54 ultimately depend from canceled claim 43; claims 56–60, 63–66, 71, and 72 ultimately depend from canceled claim 55. Like claim 33, we adopt the findings and conclusions discussed in the Non-Final Office Action and the Request for those limitations in claims 2–5, 9, 10, 14–16, 37, 38, 41, 42, 46–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–66, 71, and 72 similar to claim 21 from which Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 42 claim 33 depends. See Nov. 2012 Non-Final Act. 11–14 (citing Yee 389– 92, Fig. 1; Dykes 132, 136–42, 144–45, Fig. 6; Request 120–54, Claim Chart CC-D); see also Request 120–32 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Figs. 4, 6; Exs. CC-D, OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, 121:1–3, OTH-D, 17:7–9), , Claim Chart CC-D 1–11 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145, Fig. 6; Exs. OTH-B, 61:23–25, 104:16–20, OTH-D, 17:7–9). Regarding claim 2, we further adopt the findings and conclusion presented in the Action Closing Prosecution. See ACP 17–18 (citing Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 136–37, 139–42, 145, 147). Regarding claims 3, 14, 44, and 56, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented in (1) the Non-Final Office Action and Request related to canceled claim 22 (Non- Final Act. 13 (citing Dykes 137, 139–41, 144–45, Figs. 4, 6); Request 132– 35 (citing Dykes 137, 139–41, Figs. 4, 6; Ex. CC-D)), (2) the Action Closing Prosecution for claims 3, 14, and 56 (ACP 19–20 (citing Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 134, 136–37, 139–42, 145, 147, Fig. 6), 29–31 (same), 41–43 (same)), and (3) Requester’s cross appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 25–26 (citing Dykes 137, Fig. 6)). Regarding claims 4, 15, 45, and 57, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented in (1) the Non-Final Office Action and Request related to canceled claim 23 (Non-Final Act. 13 (citing Dykes 137–41); Request 135–38 (citing Dykes 137–41, 144–45, Fig. 4; Ex. CC-D, OTH-B, 59:18–19)) (2) the Action Closing Prosecution for claims 4 and 57 (ACP 21 (citing Dykes 137–41), 31 (same), 43 (same)), and (3) Requester’s cross appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 26–27 (citing Dykes 137, 139, 144; Sections VIII.B.2–3, and Subsection 2)). Regarding claims 5, 16, 24, 46, and 58, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented in (1) the Action Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 43 Closing Prosecution for claim 5 (ACP 21–22 (citing Dykes 137, 139–42, 145), 32 (same), 43–45 (same)) and (2) Requester’s cross appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 16–17 (citing Dykes 137), 27 (citing Section VIII.B.2 for claim 24)). Moreover, Dykes shows “a direction identifier” as arrows in its figures. See Dykes, Figs. 4, 6. Regarding claims 9, 37, and 71, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented in the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP 27–29 (citing 389–92, Fig. 1; Dykes 134, 137, 139–42, 145, Fig. 6; Request 122), 58–60 (same)) and by Requester in its cross-appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 22–23 (citing Yee 389; Dykes 129, 144, 146)). Moreover, Yee discusses Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information Systems working with video technology (Yee 388), its system is capable of obtaining accurate GPS positioning (id. at 390), and collecting and synchronizing images (id. at 391). Additionally, Dykes’s Figure 2 and its stitching technique suggests that the acquired image frames (e.g., the nine frames in the upper-left side) are synchronized with some form of position information in order to create the continuous panorama that is properly aligned as shown in Figure 2. See Dykes 135, 137, Fig. 2. Combining Yee’s GPS positioning/synchronizing image approach with Dykes’s technique to unite (e.g., synchronized) images based on position would have assisted in and improved upon producing the continuous image (e.g., a panorama) in Dykes by using the Yee’s positioning data. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 Regarding claims 10, 38, and 72, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented in the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP 29 (referring Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 44 to claim 9), 60 (referring to claim 71)) and by Requester in its cross-appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 23–24 (citing Yee 392; Dykes 144)). Regarding claims 26, 48 and 60, we further adopt the Requester’s findings and conclusions. 3PR Appeal Br. 17 (citing Dykes 139), 28 (stating “Dykes discloses this limitation for the same reasons discussed in Section VIII.B.3 for Claim 26”). In particular, Dykes teaches hot-linked or interactive symbols (e.g., “displaying a navigation button”) that can be clicked to display images (e.g., “receiving user selection of the navigation button”). Dykes 137, 139, 141, Fig. 4. Dykes also teaches the symbols are included “within panoramas that display the appropriate image when clicked” (id. at 139), and “the map identif[ies] the locations of panoramas, and reveal the view and angle of view when clicked” (id. at 140). Thus, when a user clicks on the symbol at location as taught in Dykes to view a panorama and then clicks on another symbol (e.g., an interactive symbol near an arrow to the right or left of the first’s location center) within the panorama, Dykes teaches or suggests a symbol can show its direction relative to its location using further arrows (see id. at 139, 141 (see arrows within middle and bottom panoramas in Figure 4)) and further that a section of a panoramic image can be viewed by moving left or right (see id. at 137– 39, Fig. 3) or “clockwise from [the] north” (id. at 139) (e.g., “a navigation direction”). Dykes’ teachings, when combined with Yee, thus teach and suggest “receiving user selection of the navigation button” as claimed. Regarding claims 29, 51, and 63, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented by Requester in its cross-appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 18 Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 45 (citing Dykes 139), 28 (referring claim 29 and Section VIII.B.4), 31–32 (same)). Regarding claim 41, we further adopt the findings and conclusions presented by Requester in its cross-appeal (3PR Appeal Br. 24 (citing Dykes 145)). Moreover, Yee also teaches its system has a database containing infrastructure, street details, and data. Yee 388. Using a database to perform the process of claim 21, from which claim 41 depends, at least suggests to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the recited “one or more computer devices includes a server” consistent with the Specification. See the ’025 patent, 4:40 (discussing a “database server”). As for claim 42, we refer to the discussion of limitations found in canceled claims 1 and 13, both of which include recitations to “a user terminal” similar to the “one or more computer devices includes a user terminal” recited in claim 42. See, e.g., ACP 17 (discussing “a user terminal”) (citing Yee 391–92), 29–30 (same). We further adopt Requester’s discussion of claim 42. 3PR Appeal Br. 24–25 (citing Yee 391– 92). Regarding claims 47 and 59, we further adopt the Requester’s findings and conclusions related to Yee. 3PR Appeal Br. 27–28 (citing Yee 392) (referring to Subsections 4 and 7). Specifically, Yee teaches a user can point to a road segment or specific location on a computerized map to view an image and the user can provide a “[s]treet address entry” to “retrieve house images as every house is individually tagged with its address.” Yee 392. As such, Yee teaches and suggests a “location specified by the first user input is an address specifying information selected from the group Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 46 consisting of street name, city, state, and zip code” as claims 47 and 59 recite. Regarding claims 52 and 64, these claims are similar in scope to canceled claim 30. We thus further adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Request and the Non-Final Office Action related to claim 30 and in the Action Closing Prosecution related to claim 64. See Request 175–78 (citing Dykes 137, 139–41, 144–45, Figs. 4, 6; Ex. OTH-B 61:23– 25); see also Non-Final Act. 13–14 (citing Dykes 137, 139–40, 144–45, Figs. 4, 6; Ex. CC-D); ACP 49–51 (citing Yee 389–92; Dykes 134, 136–37, 139–41, 142, 145, Fig. 6; Request 122). Regarding claims 53, 54, 65, and 66, these claims are similar in scope to one of canceled claims 31 or 32. We thus further adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Request and the Non-Final Office Action related to claim 32 and the Action Closing Prosecution related to claims 65 and 66 that Dykes teaches “displaying a map of at least a portion of the geographic area, wherein the direction identifier is displayed on the map” as recited. See Request 178–84 (citing Dykes 134, 139–41, 142, 144–45, Fig. 6; OTH-B 59:18–19, 61:23–25); see also Non-Final Act. 13–14 (citing Dykes 137, 139–40, 144–45, Figs. 4, 6; Ex. CC-D); ACP 51–52 (citing Dykes 137–41, 144–45, Fig. 6; Request 122). Moreover, as previously noted, Dykes teaches displaying symbols, which include both dots (e.g., “a location identifier” as claims 53 and 65 recite) and arrows (e.g., “a direction identifier” as canceled claims 43 and 55 recited) on a map. Dykes 139–41, 145, Figs. 4, 6. Dykes also teaches multiple symbols can be located within a map (see id. at 141, 145, Figs. 4, 6), further suggesting “displaying on the Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 47 map a location identifier” on the displayed map as claims 53 and 65 recite and “retrieving from the image source a third image associated with the selected location on the map” and “displaying the third image on the display screen” as claims 54 and 66 recite. For each of the above-discussed claims, we additionally refer to our previous discussion addressing reasons to combine Yee and Dykes. In summary, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b), claims 2–6, 8–10, 14– 18, 20, 24, 26, 29, 33–38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–68, and 70–72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee and Dykes. IV. REQUESTER’S CROSS APPEAL Requester appeals the Examiner’s confirmation of claim 28 and the ultimate conclusion that claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, and 63 are patentable. 3PR Appeal Br. 2; RAN 1. Requester argues that claims 24, 26, 28, and 29 should be rejected based on Ishida and Dykes and claims 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, and 63 should be rejected based on Ishida, Dykes, and Yee. 3PR Appeal Br. 11–32. Ishida, Dykes, and Yee Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b), we present a new ground of rejection for claims 28, 29, 51, and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ishida, Dykes, and Yee. Each of claims 28 and 29 ultimately depends from canceled claim 21; claim 51 ultimately depends from canceled claim 43; claim 63 ultimately depends from canceled claim 55. Thus, each of claims 28 and 29 includes the limitations found in canceled claim 21; claim 51 Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 48 includes the limitations found in canceled claim 43; claim 63 includes the limitations found in canceled claim 55. A. Claim 28 Claim 28 recites “[t]he method of claim 27, wherein 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” (the Web Page Limitations). Claim 27 has been canceled and depends from canceled claim 21. We adopt Requester’s discussion of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Ishida and Dykes in the Request, the August 2013 Comments, and the Requester’s Appeal Brief. Request 154–65 (citing Ishida 25–27, 34, Figs. 1, 3; Dykes 137, 139–41, 145–46, Fig. 6; Ex. OTH-B 104:16–20,106; Ex. CC-E), 171–174 (citing Ishida 30–31; Dykes 139, 144–45, Fig. 6; Ex. OTH-B 59:18–19, 61:23–25, 106; Ex. OTH-D 17:7–9; Ex. CC-E); see also Aug. 2013 3PR Comments 12–16 (citing Dykes 127, 137, 139–42, 146, Abstract; Ishida 3, 6–822); 3PR Appeal Br. 11–16 (citing Request 156–65, 173, 174; Ishida 25, 29–30; Dykes 1237, 137, 139–42, 146, Abstract, Figs. 4, 6). We further rely on the additional teachings and conclusions of (1) Yee and (2) Dykes as previously discussed when addressing canceled claim 21 22 Requester refers to the pages in Ishida differently in (a) its appeal brief and August 2013 Comments and (b) the Request. Compare 3PR Appeal Br. 15 (citing Ishida 3), with Request 156–57 (quoting Ishida 25–27). We use similar page numbering to the Request. For example, in the above citation, pages 3 and 6–8 cited in the August 2013 Comments are pages 25, 28–30 in the Request. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 49 under the rejection based on Yee and Dykes. See, e.g., Yee 389–92, Fig. 1; see also Dykes 141, Fig. 4. The Examiner initially adopted, but later withdrew, this rejection. ACP 61–63, 66; RAN 62–64, 67. Concerning the Web Page Limitations (see Section (III)(A)(3)), Requester contends that Ishida provides web information “as part of the virtual tourist experience that allows users to access the geographically indexed websites, such as to determine the availability of restaurant tables available for dining.” 3PR Appeal Br. 15; see id. at 3 (stating “Ishida teaches enabling user access to store websites, such as to determine the availability of restaurant tables available for dining”). Requester states, under the proposed construction, Ishida’s website access teaches the Web Page Limitations. See id. at 15–16. Requester argues that Ishida teaches registering web pages, dynamically integrating WEB archives from various companies (e.g., parking lot availability or restaurant table availability), and retrieving WEB retrieval of real-time data. See id.; see also 3PR Rh’g Request 3–12. 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.” 3PR Appeal Br. 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” as claim 28 recites. Id. Patent Owner argues Ishida does not disclose the Web Page Limitations. Aug. 2015 PO Comments 9–16. Specifically, Patent Owner Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 50 argues that Ishida does not indicate clearly whether it “displays the actual web pages registered by its users” (id. at 11) or the retail establishment’s web page, but rather obtains information from a web page to present in a map. See id. at 11–13. As discussed above in Section (III)(A)(3), we understand the phrase “web page for the retail establishment” to include a web page (1) that shows particular information about the retail establishment (e.g., online Yellow Pages directory) or (2) associated with a particular retail establishment. See Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 505. Ishida teaches a social information infrastructure for a city (e.g., Kyoto) that includes shopping, business, transportation, education, and other information. See Ishida 23–24, Abstract. This structure integrates both World Wide Web archives and real- time information related to the city into WEB and ftp interface (e.g., the interface or second layer) on the Internet. See id. at 23–25, 28; see 3PR Rh’g Request 8–9 (discussing Ishida’s three-layer model) (citing Ishida 24– 25, Fig. 1). Specifically, Ishida’s Section 4 indicates the digital city integrates WEB and sensory data on a map, which involves registering WEB pages with the digital city, determining the XY coordinate of each WEB page, and retrieving WEB pages. Ishida 28–30; see 3PR Appeal Br. 15 (quoting Ishida 25). As an example, sensors in Kyoto gather traffic data from buses that send location and route data to the live digital city, and WEB pages for bus stops are retrieved and displayed so that real-time bus data is displayed on the map of Kyoto. See Ishida 29–30, Fig. 5(b); see 3PR Rh’g Request 11 (reproducing Ishida, Figs 5(a)–(b)). As such, each of these web pages in Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 51 Ishida (e.g., WEB and ftp interface) shows particular information (e.g., bus data) about or associated with a retail establishment (e.g., a transportation company having a bus stop). Ishida therefore teaches or suggests “the particular one of the objects is a retail establishment” (e.g., a bus stop in geographic area,23 like Kyoto), “accessing a web page for the retail establishment” (e.g., Kyoto’s or the digital city’s WEB/ftp interface that contains web page information for the transportation company’s bus stop) and “invoking by the computer system a display of the web page on the display screen” (e.g., displaying the Kyoto bus stop’s real-time information using the WEB/ftp interface) as claim 28 recites. To the extent that a transportation company’s bus stop is not viewed as “a retail establishment,” Ishida also teaches its interface retrieves data related to traffic, weather, parking, shopping, and sightseeing (id. at 24), which include information concerning parking lots (e.g., the nearest parking lot), restaurant tables (e.g., whether one can reserve a table at a restaurant), and shopping (e.g., what is on sale at a department store). See id. at 24, 30; see 3PR Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Ishida). Although Ishida further notes that information related to parking lots and restaurants are expected in the future (id. at 30), these teachings in Ishida at a minimum suggest “a web page for the retail establishment” recitations in claim 28 as construed in Section (III)(A)(3). Requester further relies on common knowledge in concluding that “web pages are retrieved and displayed to users on a computer system’s 23 Claim 21, from which claim 28 depends, recites “a plurality of images depicting views of objects in the geographic area.” The ’025 patent, 17:48– 49. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 52 screen.” 3PR Appeal Br. 16. Based on this common knowledge, Requester argues, and we adopt, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Ishida’s discussions of “‘WEB retrieval’ of ‘real-time data’ and displaying them to the users” (id. (quoting Ishida 30)) teaches the recited “invoking by the computer system a display of the web page on the display screen” as claim 28 recites. Id.; see also 3PR Rh’g Request 11–12. Patent Owner argues Ishida does not disclose “accessing a web page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the computer system a display of the web page on the display screen” as recited because Ishida merely updates photos on buildings using a WEB and ftp interface. PO Rh’g Request 10 (quoting Ishida 27–28); see Aug. 2015 PO Comments 9–10, 14. Patent Owner further argues Ishida does not teach the above limitation even if the language includes “displaying information relating to the retailer.” Aug. 2015 PO Comments 13–14. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded. Patent Owner also contends that Ishida does not clearly teach “display[ing] the actual web pages registered by the users” but rather merely obtaining information from a web page and presenting the information within a map. Id. at 11 (quoting Ishida 28); see id. at 11–14. This argument is not persuasive. Based on the court’s construction of “web page for a retail establishment,” the actual web page registered by the user need not be displayed when “invoking . . . a display of the web page on the display screen” as recited. That is, the recited “web page for the retail establishment” in claim 28 is not limited to “one that is owned or operated by the retail establishment” (Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 504–505) but rather Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 53 includes a web page that either shows particular information about the retail establishment or is associated with a particular retail establishment. Id. at 505. As previously explained, Ishida’s WEB interface generates a digital city (e.g., a web page) that integrates WEB data from WEB pages and sensory data on a map about or associated with a retail establishment (e.g., a company’s bus stop, parking lot, or restaurant) (Ishida 28–30) and thus “invok[es] . . . a display of the web page [for the retail establishment] on the display screen” as claim 28 recites. Patent Owner notes Ishida states “WEB retrieval under the constraint of sensory data is definitely an interesting research issue” (Ishida 30). Aug. 2015 PO Comments 13. For this reason, Patent Owner argues the cited portion of Ishida “is speculative.” Id. We are not persuaded. As noted above, Ishida explicitly teaches and shows retrieving data from web pages and sensory data. Ishida 29, Figs. 5(a)–(b). As such, Ishida does not just speculate or propose retrieving data as a research topic but rather actually shows an example of retrieving web and sensory data within a web interface. See id. at 23, 25–26, 28. Regarding the Image Frames Limitations (see Section (II)(A)(1)) in claim 21, from which claim 28 ultimately depends, Requester states that Dykes teaches “the images . . . may be taken by students as they travel from one location to another.” Request 159 (quoting Dykes 146); see id. at 160 (same); 3PR Appeal Br. 14 (citing Dykes 146). For the first time in its rebuttal brief, Patent Owner asserts Dykes does not appear to disclose the images are captured while its image recording device is in motion. PO Reb. Br. 13–14 (quoting Dykes 134), 19. Patent Owner further states Ishida does Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 54 not teach the Image Frames Limitations because “Ishida merely appears to disclose developing a three-dimensional model of a city (see, e.g., p. 27 of Ishida).” Id. at 19. In Section (III)(A)(1), we found the Image Frames Limitation requires the image recording device moves along a path, course or route and that the image recording device acquires images associated with image frames (1) while moving or (2) both while moving and while stationary as long as some images are associated with image frames acquired while the image recording device is moving. Requester cites to Ishida and Dykes to teach “providing by the image source a plurality of images depicting views of objects in the geographic area” and “wherein the images are associated with image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory” limitations respectively. Request 157–58 (citing Ishida 27), 159–60 (citing Dykes 146). Ishida’s digital city (e.g., Kyoto) interface can be built from 3D Web technology that integrates photos mapped onto 3D blocks and 2D planes to create a realistic 3DML (three-dimensional modeling language) space. Ishida 26–27, cited in Request 157. Ishida is silent regarding how its photos are obtained. Dykes provides a little more detail about how its images are obtained. Dykes 146, cited in Request 159–60. Specifically, Dykes teaches students record images using a digital camera and obtain images at selected locations along a footpath’s slope. Id.; see id. at 134 (discussing digital cameras capturing images). Yet, Dykes also does not disclose whether or not these images can be obtained by the digital camera (e.g., an image Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 55 recording device) (1) while moving or (2) both while moving and while stationary. As previously discussed, Yee teaches a known technique for obtaining image frames using cameras located on a van that moves along a road (e.g., image frames acquired by an image recording device moving along a trajectory) to ensure no object is lost behind an obstruction for example. See Yee 388–90. Given Ishida’s interest to obtain images of a city realistically and to diminish modeling problems (Ishida 26–27), Yee provides a solution that collects images completely and accurately for Ishida’s digital city interface. Yee further discusses its system has accurate GPS three- dimensional positioning to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data collected. Yee 390. This teaching in Yee further assists Ishida’s process of determining coordinates for images associated with WEB pages that are part of Ishida’ digital city interface. See Ishida 29. Patent Owner also argues Ishida when combined with Dykes and Yee24 does not disclose “a user selection associated with a particular one of the objects depicted in the first image” as claim 28 recites due to its dependency on claim 27 (not reexamined). Aug. 2015 PO Comments 15. We disagree. The Request proposed that Dykes teaches this feature when a user clicks on hot-linked symbols representing spots or locations (e.g., objects) within an image (e.g., a panorama), and an appropriate image is displayed. Request 171–73 (citing Dykes 139, 144); see Dykes 141, 145, Figs. 4, 6. Moreover, as explained above, “one of the object” as recited in 24 Patent Owner mistakenly refers to “Yes” instead of Yee. Aug. 2015 PO Comments 15. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 56 claim 27 and “the particular one of the objects” recited in claim 28 can be a company’s bus stop, parking lot, or restaurant as taught or suggested by Ishida. When combined, Ishida and Dykes teach or suggest a user selection can be associated with a particular one of the objects depicted in the first image. Also, as discussed above, Yee also teaches its interface allows a user to point at a road segment or specific location on a map and then display images related to the segment or location. See Yee 391–92. Thus, when combined, Ishida, Dykes, and Yee teach or suggest a user selection can be “associated with a particular one of the objects depicted in the first image” as claim 28 recites due to its dependency on claim 27. Upon review of the record, we adopt Requester’s finding and conclusions related to claim 28 as our own. B. Claims 29, 51, and 63 Claim 29 ultimately depends from canceled claim 21 and recites “invoking by the computer system a display of an icon in association with the particular one of the objects, wherein the user selection is actuation of the icon.” Claims 51 ultimately depends from canceled claim 43; claim 63 ultimately depends from canceled claim 55. Claims 51 and 63 recite similar limitations to claim 29. For each of these claims, we adopt Requester’s findings and conclusions how Ishida, Dykes, and Yee teach or suggest the recitations in these claims. 3PR Appeal Br. 18 (citing Dykes 139), 20 (citing “Section VIII.B.1 of the August Comments”; Request 154–156; Lachinski 2:47–50, 3:32–37, 9:42–46, 12:52–65, 13:56–63, 16:40–50), 28 (referring to claim 29, Section VIII.B.4, and Subsection 7). Claim 63 ultimately depends from Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 57 canceled claim 55. We adopt Requester’s findings and conclusions how Ishida, Dykes, and Yee teach or suggest the recitations in these claims. 3PR Appeal Br. 31–32 (referring to claims 55 and 61) (citing Request 122–32, 148–49; Sections VIII.B.1 and Section VIII.B.4). Also, Ishida teaches including moving objects, such as cars, buses, and trains (e.g., “display of an icon in association with the particular one of the objects” depicted in an image), within its interface layer having 2D maps and 3D virtual spaces and that these objects can be clicked to communicate with it (e.g., “the user selection is actuation of the icon”). Ishida 25. When combined with Dykes teachings to display symbols associated with objects in the geographic area, the combined method would have predictably yielded the step of “invoking by the computer system a display of an icon in association with the particular one of the objects, wherein the user selection is actuation of the icon” as claims 29, 51, and 63 recite. Patent Owner did not file a respondent brief to address Requester’s appeal and the proposed rejection. Other than discussing claim 28, Patent Owner does not discuss the above claims in its comments to Requester’s rehearing request. See generally Aug. 2015 PO Comments (addressing the Web Page Limitations). Upon review of the record, we adopt Requester’s finding and conclusions related to claims 29, 51, and 63 as our own. C. Remaining Claims Appealed Above, we rejected patent claims 24, 26, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, and 52–54 based on Yee and Dykes. Thus, the above discussions address all the claims on appeal and are dispositive, rendering it unnecessary to reach the Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 58 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). V. CONCLUSION We have reviewed the entire record, including submissions by Patent Owner and Requester and the decision in Vederi. Concerning the claims rejected by the Examiner, we determine: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) /Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, 70–72 103(a) Yee, Dykes 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, 70–72 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60, 64–68, 70–72 Concerning the claims the Examiner either confirmed or found patentable, we conclude: Claims Not Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63 24, 26, 29, 37, 103(a) Yee, Dykes 24, 26, 28, 37, Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 59 38, 41, 42, 44– 48, 51– 54, 63 38, 41, 42, 44– 48, 51– 54, 63 28, 29, 51, 63 103(a) Ishida, Dykes, Yee 28, 29, 51, 63 Overall Outcome 2–6, 8– 10, 14– 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 33–38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–68, 70–72 VI. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b). Section 41.77(b) provides “a new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.77(b) also provides that Patent Owner, within one month from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal proceeding as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. The owner may file a response requesting reopening of prosecution before the examiner. Such a response must be either an amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both. Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 60 (2) Request rehearing. The owner may request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.79 by the Board upon the same record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(a)(1), the “[p]arties to the appeal may file a request for rehearing of the decision within one month of the date of: . . . [t]he original decision of the Board under § 41.77(a).” A request for rehearing must be in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b). Comments in opposition to the request and additional requests for rehearing must be in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(c)–(d), respectively. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(e), “[t]he times for requesting rehearing under paragraph (a) of this section, for requesting further rehearing under paragraph (c) of this section, and for submitting comments under paragraph (b) of this section may not be extended.” An appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141–144 and 315 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.983 for an inter partes reexamination proceeding “commenced” on or after November 2, 2002 may not be taken “until all parties’ rights to request rehearing have been exhausted, at which time the decision of the Board is final and appealable by any party to the appeal to the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.81; see also MPEP §§ 2682, 2683. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). Appeal 2015-001495 Reexamination Control 95/000,681 Patent 7,805,025 B2 61 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 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. REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.77 FOR PATENT OWNER: CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP PO BOX 29001 GLENDALE, CA 91209-9001 FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: O’MELEVENY & MYERS LLP IP&T CALENDAR DEPARTMENT 400 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2899 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation