7805025 et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2015001495 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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