7805025 et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2021

2015001495 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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 12/16/2021
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
12/16/2021 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 JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceedings involve U.S. Patent No. 7,805,025 B2 (“the ’025
patent), which expired on January 11, 2021. Dec. 2.1 This proceeding is

1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) the Request for Inter Partes
Reexamination (“Request”) filed August 20, 2012, (2) the Right of Appeal
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

2
also related to Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,682–95/000,684,
involving U.S. Patent Nos. 7,239,760 B2, 7,577,316 B2, and 7,813,596 B2
respectively, all of which have also expired.
As previously explained (see Dec. 2), this proceeding returns to the
Board on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which
vacated previous Board decisions for this proceeding 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). On remand, another panel2 rendered
a Decision on Appeal (“ the June 2021 Decision”) on June 1, 2021, (1)
reversing (a) the rejection of claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60,
64–68, and 70–72 based on Yee and Dykes under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and
(b) the confirmation of claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54,
and 63; and (2) entering new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.77(b) for (a) claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 33–38, 41, 42,

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
Requester’s Appeal Brief (“3PR Appeal Br.”) filed January 24, 2014, (6) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 9, 2014, (7) Requester’s Request
for Rehearing Under 37 CFR § 41.79 (“3PR July 2015 Reh’g Request”) filed
July 27, 2015, (9) the Board’s Decision mailed June 1, 2021 (“Dec.”), (10)
Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”) filed July 1, 2021,
and (11) Requester’s Comments in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Request
for Rehearing (“3PR Comments”) filed August 2, 2021.
2 The panel included Judges Pothier, Chen, and Branch.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

3
44–48, 51–54, 56–60, 63–68, and 70–72 based on Yee3 and Dykes4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), and (b) claims 28, 29, 51, and 63 based on Ishida,5 Dykes,
and Yee under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dec. 4, 58–59, 61.
In response to the new grounds, Patent Owner requested rehearing
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 (“Request for Rehearing”) on July 1, 2021.
Requester responded with comments pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(c) (“3PR
Comments”) on August 2, 2021.
We have reconsidered the June 2021 Decision in light of Patent
Owner’s contentions in the Request for Rehearing. Patent Owner sets forth
reasons why the earlier panel allegedly misapprehended or overlooked
points in entering the new grounds of rejection. As discussed below, we
maintain the determinations made in the June 2021 Decision.

DISCUSSION
“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.” 37
C.F.R. § 41.77(b)(2) (2020); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1) (2020).

3 Frank Yee, GPS & Video Data Collection In Los Angeles County: A Status
Report, Position Location And Navigation Symposium, Proc. IEEE Position
Location and Navigation 388–93 (1994) (“Yee”).
4 J. Dykes, An Approach To Virtual Environments For Visualization Using
Linked Geo-referenced Panoramic Imagery, 24 Computers, Env’t & Urb.
Sys. 127–52 (2000) (“Dykes”).
5 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”).
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

4
Patent Owner argues that the June 2021 Decision does not construe
several terms in the claims of the ’025 patent under their ordinary and
customary meanings. Req. Reh’g 2. These terms include “a composite
image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 or “each composite image” in
claim 35 (id. at 2–8), “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”) in claim 28 (id. at 8–9, 28), and “a
second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first
location” and “determining a second location based on the user specified
navigation direction” in canceled independent claim 1 and similarly found in
canceled independent claims 13, 21, 43, and 556 (id. at 9–12).
Patent Owner also asserts that: (1) Yee and Dykes do not teach “a
second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first
location” and determining “a second location based on the user specified
navigation direction” found in claim 21 and similarly found in dependent
claim 33 (Req. Reh’g 13–18), (2) the Decision does not articulate how
Dykes modifies Yee to arrive at the claimed combination (id. at 18–21), and
(3) Yee alone or Yee and Dykes in combination do not disclose a
“composite image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 (id. at 21–26). Regarding
the combination of Ishida, Dykes, and Yee, Patent Owner further argues: (1)
Ishida does not teach the Web Page Limitations in claim 28 because Ishida
does not disclose displaying information as a web page (id. at 27–30), and

6 As previously explained, independent claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 have
been canceled. Dec. 3. However, each pending claim ultimately depends
from one of claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55 and thus includes the limitations
found in one of these claims. See the ’025 patent, 15:42–22:62.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

5
(2) the Decision does not clearly articulate how the teachings of Ishida,
Dykes, and Yee would be combined to arrive at claims 29, 51, and 63 (id. at
30–33).
Requester disagrees. See generally 3PR Comments 1–18. We
address each of Patent Owner’s contentions below.

ANALYSIS
I. Claim construction
A. “[C]omposite image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68
The phrase “composite image” is found in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and
68. The ’025 patent 16:16, 17:31, 19:7, 19:12, 22:28. In the June 2021
Decision, an earlier panel found this phrase means “a single image created
by combining different image data or by uniting image data.” Dec. 20.
Patent Owner asserts that the phrase “composite image” consistent
with the Specification,
means a new image, created by processing pixel data of a
plurality of image frames, 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.

Req. Reh’g 7; see id. at 3–8 (quoting the ’025 patent, Abstract, 1:27–57,
2:10–12, 2:33–39, 3:46–49, 5:45–51) (citing the ’025 patent 2:37–39, 5:45–
6:5, 9:10–21) (reproducing the ’025 patent, Fig. 16; Provisional Application
No. 60/238,490, Fig. 11). Patent Owner also appears to argue that
“composite image” under Phillips “refers to a single image created by
combining different image data or by uniting image data [wh]ere the single
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

6
image provides a single view.” Id. at 8.
Requester asserts Patent Owner’s arguments were previously raised
and rejected by the Board and the Federal Circuit. See 3PR Comments 2–4
(citing Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503; Dec. 17; the ’025 patent 5:66–6:1).
Additionally, Requester asserts Patent Owner is attempting to limit the
phrase “composite image” “to cover only narrow preferred embodiments in
the specification.” Id. at 4 (citing Dec. 18).
The Board gave the claim recitations in the ’025 patent “‘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.’”
Dec. 9–10 (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 2005)); see id. at 17 nn.12–14 (addressing the term “composite”) (citing
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th ed.)). Additionally, the Board
stated “[c]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are
a part’” and that “the specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis.’” Id. at 10 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315
(citation omitted)). Consistent with these principles, the Board has
considered how the Specification of the ’025 patent describes a “composite
image” in arriving at the current claim construction. See id. at 16–17 (citing
the ’025 patent, Abstract, 2:22–24, 2:34–36, 3:46–49, 5:45–47, 5:66–6:15).
The Board further considered and gave appropriate weight to the
Federal Circuit’s construction of the phrase “composite image,” which
agreed with the Board’s claim construction of “a composite image.” Id. at
17 (quoting Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503). Notably, the Federal Circuit
rejected Vederi’s proffered
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

7
narrowing construction that would limit ‘composite image’ to
‘a new image, created by processing pixel data of a plurality of
image frames, 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; see also Dec. 17–18 (quoting Vederi, 813 F.
App’x at 503).
We thus disagree that the Board overlooked or misapprehended an
argument that the phrase a “composite image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68
was construed inconsistent with the ’025 patent or its plain and ordinary
meaning as an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been understood.
B. “[A] web page for the retail establishment” in 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 Web
Page Limitations). The ’025 patent, 18:46–49. Regarding the recitation
“web page for retail establishment,” the June 2021 Decision states “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.” Dec. 22.
Patent Owner contends that the June 2021 “Decision does not appear
to provide a construction for the term ‘web page’ in accordance with the
ordinary meaning of the phrase.” Req. Reh’g 8. Patent Owner
submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would understand that a Web page is a hypertext
document written in the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML),
which may further include images, video, and/or client-side
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

8
scripts (e.g., VBScript or JavaScript)[], and a Web browser
renders a Web page to be displayed to a user.

Id. at 9 (citing the ’025 patent 12:53–56, Fig. 16) (omitting footnote); see id.
n.1 (citing Web page, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language (defining “n. A document on the World Wide Web, consisting of
a hypertext file and any related files for scripts and graphics, and often
hyperlinked to other documents on the Web.”)).
Requester contends that the Federal Circuit found “for this exact
term[,] that the ‘[t]he [sic] specification does nothing to limit [the] broad
claim language’ at issue.” 3PR Comments 8 (quoting Vederi, 813 Fed.
App’x at 5047) (last bracketing in original). Requester asserts that Patent
Owner does not “heed[] the Federal Circuit’s caution” and instead attempts
to narrow the claim construction of the “web page” to include “a ‘web
browser’ limitation,” which is not supported by the dictionary definition
presented by Patent Owner and is only described as a preferred feature in the
’025 patent’s Specification. Id. at 8–9 (citing Req. Reh’g 9 n.1; Web page,
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language; the ’025
patent 12:53–56).
Although we did not construe the phrase “web page” explicitly in the
Decision, we did address what “a web page for retail establishment” would
encompass— “a web page that (1) shows particular information about the
retail establishment or (2) is associated with a particular retail
establishment.” Dec. 22. In reaching this determination, we considered the
passage from the ’025 patent cited by Patent Owner. See id. at 21

7 The quotation is found at Vederi, 813 Fed. App’x at 505.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

9
(discussing the ’025 patent 12:48, 12:53–54). Furthermore, as the Federal
Circuit found, “[t]he specification does nothing to limit this broad claim
language” of “accessing a web page for the retail establishment” as claim 28
recites. Vederi, 813 Fed. App’x at 505. As such, contrary to Patent Owner’s
assertions (see Req. Reh’g 9), the Specification does not define or limit the
phrase “web page” found in claim 28 to include a web browser for rendering
and displaying the web page. Indeed, the definition of “web page” provided
by Patent Owner—“[a] document on the World Wide Web, consisting of a
hypertext file and any related files for scripts and graphics, and often
hyperlinked to other documents on the Web” (Web page, The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, available
at https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=web+page)—does not
require a rendered web page to be displayed using a web browser.
Additionally, although the Specification’s column 12 describes an
embodiment that “preferably” displays a web page “on a separate browser
window” (the ’025 patent 12:55–56), we decline to import this specific
embodiment into claim 28, which only recites “invoking . . . a display of the
web page on the display screen” without limiting the invocation to using a
web browser. Id. at 18:47–48; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323
(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
the invention, [the Federal Circuit] ha[s] repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to those embodiments.”), quoted in Dec. 18.
That said, the Patent Owner has provided a definition of “a web
page,” which is “[a] document on the World Wide Web, consisting of a
hypertext file and any related files for scripts and graphics . . . .” Web page,
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

10
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, cited in Req.
Reh’g 9. Other than disputing the “unduly narrow construction requiring a
‘web browser’[,]” Requester has not challenged this meaning of “web page”
on the record. See 3PR Comments 8–9. We find this definition is one plain
meaning of the phrase “web page.” The remainder of the “web page”
definition, however, states the document is “often hyperlinked to other
documents on the Web” (Web page, The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language (emphasis added)), and thus, this hyperlinked feature
is not required to be “web page” as claim 28 recites.
We thus disagree that the Board overlooked or misapprehended an
argument that the phrase “a web page for a retail establishment” in claim 28
was construed inconsistent with the ’025 patent or its plain and ordinary
meaning as an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been understood. We
further determine “a web page” includes a document on the World Wide
Web, consisting of a hypertext file and any related files for scripts and
graphics.
C. “[A] second user input specifying a navigation direction
relative to the first location in the geographic area” and “determining a
second location based on the user specified navigation direction” in claim 1
and similarly found in claims 13, 21, 43, and 55
Canceled independent claim 1 recites “receiving a second user input
specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location in the
geographic area” and “determining a second location based on the user
specified navigation direction” (“the Navigational Direction Limitations”).
The ’025 patent 15:57–61. Canceled independent claim 21 recites
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

11
“receiving . . . a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative
to the first location” and “determining . . . a second location based on the
user specified navigation direction.” The ’025 patent 17:65–18:2. Canceled
independent claims 13, 43, and 55 recites similar limitations. Id. at 17:1–5,
19:65–20:2, 21:18–22. In the June 2021 Decision, the panel did not provide
a claim construction for these recitations.
Patent Owner asserts an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood that the Navigational Direction Limitations recite “a two-step
process” “in which a system receives a user input specifying a direction
relative to a first location (e.g., the user input specifies a direction east of the
first location) and then determines a new, second location based on the
specified direction (e.g., eight meters east of the first location).” Req. Reh’g
12; see id. at 11–12 (quoting the ’025 patent 13:10–20) (reproducing the
’025 patent, Fig. 16). Requester states that “Patent Owner’s proffered
construction mostly repeats the language of the claim” and further
“disagrees that Patent Owner’s construction is proper, to the extent it is
limited by the purported examples — ‘a direction east of the first location’
and ‘eight meters east of the first location.’” 3PR Comments 14 (citing Req.
Reh’g 12).
We agree with Requester. First, Patent Owner’s proposed
construction essentially repeats what the claims recite, including “receiving
a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first
location” (e.g., a system receiving a user input specifying a direction relative
to a first location) and “determining a second location based on the user
specified navigation direction” (e.g., determining a new, second location
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

12
based on the specified direction) recited in claim 1. Second, the examples
provided for the Navigational Direction Limitations (e.g., the user input
specifies a direction east of the first location and being eight meters east of
the first location) are just that—particular embodiments (e.g., navigation
direction being east and the second location to be eight meters east of the
first location) found in the ’025 patent’s Specification. See the ’025 patent
13:10–20
We will not import these particular embodiments into the claims.
See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“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.”).

II. New grounds based on prior art
A. Yee/Dykes
The June 2021 Decision presented 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.
See Dec. 22–47, 58–59. Patent Owner argues claims 17, 33, and 67 as a
group, claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 as a group, and the remaining claims as a
group. See Req. Reh’g 13–27. Patent Owner also disputes rationales for
combining Dykes with Yee to arrive the features in the claims. See id. at
18–21, 24–26. We address each of these arguments below.
1. Claims 17, 33, and 67
Claims 17, 33, and 67 depend from canceled independent claims 13,
21, and 55 respectively. As such, each include the above discussed
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

13
Navigational Direction Limitations or similar recitations addressed above in
Section I.C. The June 2021 Decision determine that Yee and Dykes teach
these recitations found in claims 17, 33, and 67. See Dec. 23–34.
Patent Owner argues claims 17, 33, and 67 as a group. We select
claim 33 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Patent Owner asserts that: (1) Yee and Dykes do not teach “a second
user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the first location” and
“determining . . . a second location based on the user specified navigation
direction” found in claim 21 and similarly found in dependent claim 33
(Req. Reh’g 13–18), and (2) the Decision does not articulate how Dykes
modifies Yee to arrive at the claimed combination (id. at 18–21).
a. “a second user input specifying a navigation direction
relative to the first location” and “determining . . . a second
location based on the user specified navigation direction”
As previously discussed, claim 33 recites recitations similar to the
Navigational Direction Limitations due to its dependency on a canceled
independent claim 21. We further determine in Section I.C. that the phrase
“receiving . . . a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative
to the first location” in claim 21 includes receiving a user input specifying a
direction relative to a first location and the phrase “determining . . . a second
location based on the user specified navigation direction” includes
determining a second location based on the specified direction relative to the
first location.
Patent Owner argues that the June 2021 “Decision appears to find that
the ‘arrows’ shown in ‘VFC panorama:htd-018’ and ‘VFC panorama:mark
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

14
58’ of Figure 4 of Dykes teach the ‘a second user input specifying a
navigation direction relative to the first location in the geographic area’ as
recited in claim 21.” Req. Reh’g 14. More specifically, Patent Owner
argues the arrows in the “VFC panorama:htd-018” and “VFC
panorama:mark 58” of Dykes’s Figure 4 provide links to other panoramic
images and “corresponds to exactly one particular location” and are “without
regard to how far these other locations may be from the location of the view
shown in any particular viewer.” Id. at 15; see id. at 13–15 (quoting Dec.
26; Dykes 141) (reproducing Dykes, Fig. 4). Based on Patent Owner’s
understanding, Patent Owner contends Dykes discloses only a “one-step
process” instead of the recited “two-step process” (id. at 17) because (1)
Dykes does not disclose symbols or arrows that “specify a ‘navigation
direction relative to the first location” using its argued claim construction,
(2) Dykes’s Figure 4 does not provide a scale, and (3) the hotspots in Figure
4 “are about one mile apart.” Id. at 16; see id. at 15–18 (citing Dykes, Fig.
4).
As to the arguments (2) and (3), we did not import the eight meter
example from the ’025 patent’s disclosure into the recitation “determining a
second location based on the user specified navigation direction” found in
claim 21 above in Section I.C. We thus determined that the recitation
“determining a second location based on the user specified navigation
direction” is not limited by a distance, and thus, Patent Owner’s arguments
related to scale (see Req. Reh’g 16) and the distance of the hotspots from
each other (see id. at 15–17) are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
As to argument (1), a similar argument was made previously by Patent
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

15
Owner in a July 27, 2015 Request for Rehearing (“July 2015 Req. Reh’g”)
to a June 26, 2015 Decision (“June 2015 Decision”). In this rehearing
request, Patent Owner contended that Dykes’s arrow does not teach
receiving a navigation direction relative to the first location. July 2015 Req.
Reh’g 4–6. Although this was a newly presented argument, we noted that
“Dykes teaches a user can navigate across the virtual space between
recognized features (e.g., user input specifying a navigational direction
relative to the first location) . . . .” March 1, 2016 Decision 6 (now vacated).
Also, selecting an arrow to the right or the left of a given arrow within “VFC
panorama:htd-018” and “VFC panorama:mark 58” of Figure 4 in Dykes
suggests “receiving a second user input specifying a navigation direction”
(e.g., right or left) “relative to [a] first location” contrary to Patent Owner’s
contentions. Thus, although each arrow corresponds to a particular location,
when a user navigates right or left between different arrows within a
panoramic image, for example, the specified “user input” is relative to
another location and “specif[ies] a navigation direction” as recited in the
canceled independent claim 21. See 3PR Comments 14–15 (citing Dykes
139–40, 142) (reproducing Dykes, Fig. 4)
Additionally, we underscore that the new ground does not just discuss
the arrows in Dykes but also that Dykes teaches that the user can “mov[e]
the cursor right or left in the viewer around an arrow.” Dec. 26 (emphasis
added) (citing Dykes 137–39, Fig. 3). For example, Dykes teaches “the
incorporation and manipulation of multimedia objects such as images,
specifying actions associated with mouse/cursor interaction” (Dykes 136–37
(emphasis added)), and “[r]elating horizontal locations along an image to
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

16
bearings from a point in this way means that cursor movement in either the
map or the image can be linked to appropriate symbolism in the other view”
(id. at 139 (emphasis added)). Additionally, Dykes discusses “[t]he process
of selecting a section v of the panoramic image to view and representing the
angle of the view with arrow symbols can be programmed to occur
interactively when the cursor is moved to the left or right in a viewer.” Id. at
137 (emphasis added). Although quoting the above-noted portion in the
June 2021 Decision (Req. Reh’g 14), Patent Owner does not address the
panel’s discussion related to moving a cursor right or left (e.g., a specifying
a navigation direction relative to a first location) in the viewer around the
arrow. See id. at 13–18.
As to the assertion that Dykes only “teach[es] a one-step process in
which a user may select a symbol on the map” (Req. Reh’g 17; see id. at 17–
18, 20), we disagree. Following from the above discussion, Dykes also
teaches or suggests the second step in the Navigational Direction Limitations
(e.g., “determining . . . a second location based on the user specified
navigation direction” step) in claim 21. For example, when a user navigates
between different arrows within the “VFC panoraMap” or a panoramic
image by moving a cursor to the right or left (e.g., “a navigation direction”),
the specified “user input” (e.g., cursor movement) is relative to another
location (e.g., right of left of “the first location”) (Dykes 137–41, Fig. 4) and
thus, Dykes at least suggests “determining a second location based on the
user specified navigation direction specifying a navigation direction” as
recited in canceled independent claim 21. Otherwise, Dykes would not be
able to produce an image of the newly selected location. See id.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

17
Additionally, as Requester explains, Dykes teaches a “waypoint symbol”
(e.g., arrow) in the map or image is geo-referenced (see 3PR Comments 14–
15 (citing Dykes 139–140, 142) (reproducing Dykes, Fig. 4)) and thus, for
each user selection on a map (or image) associated with an arrow, Dykes at
least suggests determining its location (e.g., GPS coordinates) based on the
user selection (see id. at 14–16 (further citing Dykes 144)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Dykes does not teach or
suggest the Navigational Direction Limitations found in claim 33 or
similarly recited in claims 17 and 67.
b. Reason with rational underpinning for combining Yee and Dykes
Patent Owner asserts the June 2021 Decision does not articulate
clearly how Dykes modifies Yee to arrive at the emphasized limitations of
claim 21— “a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to
the first location” and “determining a second location based on the user
specified navigation direction.” Req. Reh’g 18; see id. at 17–18. More
specifically, “it is unclear how the ‘micro-, meso- and m[a]cro-scale
information’ of Dykes would be inserted into the visual interface of Yee.”
Id. at 19.8 Patent Owner also contends that if the teachings of Yee and
Dykes were combined, the symbols corresponding to a particular location in
the panoramic images “may be miles apart, thereby preventing these
symbols or arrows of Dykes from being used for navigation through a
geographic area.” Id. at 19 (quoting Dec. 23–24). Patent Owner further

8 We note that the Decision incorrectly quoted Dykes. Dec. 23. Dykes
states “[s]uch imagery is an excellent source of current micro-, meso- and
macro-scale information (Fig. 1).” Dykes 132.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

18
states that (1) collecting additional panoramic images using Dykes’s
technique “would be highly burdensome” (id. at 19) because this process
would involve manually capturing images using a camera and tripod at each
location (see id. at 19–20) and (2) placing arrows or symbols in Yee’s views
“would cause the visual interface of this combination to be unusable” (id. at
20; see id. at 20–21 (citing Yee 388–90, 392; Dykes, Fig. 4)).
Requester disagrees. 3PR Comments 17–18.
As noted by Requester (3PR Comments 18), Dykes’s specific manner
of including micro, meso or macro-scale information does not need to be
incorporated in Yee’s visual interface to render the claims obvious. See In
re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that
a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Also, as
further indicated in Figure 1 (Dykes 133), a panoramic image provides the
“macro-scale topography, meso-scale features and micro-scale geology”
(id.) and thus, the combination suggests to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
include panoramic imagery into Yee’s system (see Dec. 23–25) to assist
with these goals.
Additionally, even assuming, without deciding, the “provided ‘an
excellent source of current micro-, meso- and m[a]cro-scale information’”
(Dec. 23) rationale is unclear as argued (see Req. Reh’g 18), the June 2021
Decision provides several other reasons for combining Yee and Dyke, each
of which has a rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion.
See Dec. 23 (providing “educational aims” (citing Dykes 134)), 24 (being
“useful . . . when evaluating sites, building, and characteristics of the
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

19
neighbourhood surrounding them” (citing Dykes 134)), 24 (“to help with
orientation,” and “improved Yee’s visual interface by permitting the user to
navigate within the virtual space and between recognized features”) (citing
Dykes 137, 139–41, Figs. 4, 6); see also id. at 28–29 (citing Dykes 137,
139–41, 146; RAN 11, 17; Request 122; 3PR Resp. Br. 13–14); 3PR
Comments 17 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
combine the teachings put forward by Yee and Dykes to provide arrows in
Yee’s visual interface system (VIS) to help user orientation and create ‘a
real sense of spatiality and immersion that are the essence of virtual
environments’”) (citing Dykes 139); June 2015 Decision 19 (vacated)
(stating “Dykes teaches a known technique for navigating and visualizing
images of a geographic area, and one skilled in the art would have
recognized that Dykes’ teaching would improve on Yee’s system in the
same manner”). Notably, these rationales are not disputed by Patent Owner.
See Req. Reh’g 17–21.
Other arguments in the Request for Rehearing amount to counsel’s
arguments, which cannot take the place of factually supported objective
evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
For example, Patent Owner’s assertion that Dykes’s arrows or symbols are
“miles apart” is speculative. See Req. Reh’g 19 (stating “these locations
may be miles apart, thereby preventing these symbols or arrows of Dykes
from being used for navigation through a geographic area” without citing to
supporting evidence). Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, at least
some of the arrows or symbols shown in the panoramic images in Dykes’s
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

20
Figure 4 shown below (VFCpanoraMap:htd-018 and
VFCpanoraMap:mark58) provide evidence that the arrows are not miles.

Part of Dykes’s Figure 4 showing VFCpanoraMap:htd-018 and
VFCpanoraMap:mark58
See Dykes, Fig. 4.
As another example, Patent Owner asserts that the combination of
Yee and Dykes would result in (1) an “enormous number of views captured
by Yee” (Req. Reh’g 20), (2) arrows placed “in the views of Yee to indicate
the locations of other views available in the database of Yee” (id.), and (3)
“the symbols to cover the views with an enormous number of overlapping
downward pointing arrows, making it difficult to distinguish one arrow from
another and making it difficult for a user to predict or to control what new
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

21
view would opened when clicking on a particular arrow.” But, these
arguments too are speculative and presume that each image in Yee/Dykes
combination would include arrows for every other view and object Yee
captures and stores in its database. See id. at 20–21 (discussing Yee captures
30 frames per second while driving at 40–50 miles per hour) (citing Yee
390, 392). Moreover, Dykes’s Figure 4 above illustrates that arrows are
placed in desired locations, do not contain “an enormous number of
overlapping” arrows as asserted (id. at 21), and thus, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognized including the arrows within Yee’s system
would have at least been an obvious variation given the references’
collective teachings.
As for the remaining arguments, they are similar to arguments
previously presented in this and related proceedings. For example, the
argument that Yee and Dykes, when combined, would result in symbols
being “miles apart” and would prevent the symbols or arrows of Dykes from
being used to navigate through a geographic area (id. at 19 (quoting Dec.
23–24)) does not rebut sufficiently the obviousness rejection of the claims,
which, as indicated above, do not limit the distance between locations
specified by a user. As another example, related to Dykes’s technique being
allegedly burdensome because the Dykes’s technique involves manually
capturing images using a camera and tripod (see id. 19–20), this argument is
misplaced because it presumes that Yee’s image gathering approach is
modified with Dykes’s image acquisition technique. See id. As previously
explained, this argument improperly “focus[es] on modifying Yee’s image
gathering approach with Dykes’ image acquisition technique, which is not
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

22
how the rejection combines the teachings of Dykes and Yee.” Dec. 31
(citing RAN 70; 3PR Resp. 16); see also Dec. 27 (“indicating that the
rejection does not propose replacing Yee’s image acquisition process with
that of Dykes”) (citing 3PR Resp. Br. 16).
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
rejection fails to provide a reason with a rational underpinning to combine
Yee and Dykes to arrive at the claims at issue, such that the Board
misapprehended or overlooked a point in the newly presented ground.
2. Claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68
a. “[A] composite image”
Patent Owner argues that Yee alone or Yee and Dykes in combination
do not disclose “a composite image” in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68. Req.
Reh’g 21–24. Patent Owner specifically argues that “Yee does not clearly
disclose ‘composite images’ in accordance with the proper construction . . .
under the Phillips standard.” Id. at 22–23.9 We disagree.
As stated in the June 2021 Decision,
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

9 As addressed in Section I.A, we determined that the phrase “composite
image” consistent with the ’025 patent and its plain and ordinary meaning is
“a single image created by combining different image data or by uniting
image data” and that “a single image” does not have to be a new image that
depicts a single new view from a single location that is different from any of
the views.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

23
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.

Dec. 35; see also 3PR Comments 4 (stating “Yee explicitly used the term
‘composite’ in its disclosure.”); id. at 4–5 (quoting Yee 389).
Regarding the GeoSpan Brochure10 (Req. Reh’g 23–24), Patent
Owner asserts its “composite view” and thus, Yee’s “composite of them”
(Yee 389) would “show[] four images,” not “a single image.” Req. Reh’g
24; see id. at 23 (reproducing the image in the GeoSpan Brochure on
GEO_0000173). We are not persuaded. Although “GeoVista” and
“GeoSpan” are discussed in Yee (see, e.g., Yee 388, 392), there is
insufficient evidence that the “4-way” view in the GeoSpan Brochure
demonstrates the only possible 4-view that Yee creates. Also, the
reproduced image in the Request for Rehearing (Req. Reh’g 23) is described
as a “4-way Composite View” (id. (emphasis added)), whereas Yee
describes the “4-view” as a separate view from the “composite of them” and
other views. Yee 389; see also Dec. 36 (stating “the [language] ‘composites
of them’ is separate from the ‘4-view’ in Yee”) (citing Yee 389).
Also, regardless of whether Lachinski provides insight into “what was
meant by ‘composite of them’ in Yee” (Req. Reh’g 23), we find that
Lachinski provides insight as to what Yee’s “4-view” may be. The June
2021 Decision indicates “Lachinski is a patent issued to GeoSpan

10 DRIVE AROUND TOWN ON YOUR PC WITH GEOVISTA, VISUAL
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, GEO_0000172–177 (Exhibit A) (“the GeoSpan
Brochure”). Patent Owner assert this reference was included in its January
8, 2013 Reply “as Appx1332.” Req. Reh’g 23.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

24
Corporation on May 27, 1997. ‘GeoSpan’ and a ‘4-view’ are discussed in
Yee.”11 Dec. 37 n.21 (citing Yee 388–89). We further noted the similarities
between Yee and Lachinski. See id. at 38 (citing Yee 392; Lachinski 5:25–
31, Fig. 3). Thus, as stated in the June 2021 Decision:
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.

Dec. 38 (emphases added); see also Req. Reh’g 5 (stating “[a]nother
example of a 4-view of Yee, as further explained in Lachinski,[] includes a
single image made out of four reduced size images”) (omitting footnote)
(citing Yee 392; Lachinski 5:25-31, Fig. 3).
Lastly, Patent Owner’s arguments (Req. Reh’g 22–24) overlook the
Decision’s further discussion of Dykes’s teachings in this regard. The June
2021 Decision additionally states:
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

11 “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.” Dec.
37 n.21.

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

25
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).

Dec. 39 (emphasis added); see also id. at 25 (discussing combining Dykes
stitching feature with Yee).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the rejection fails to
demonstrate that Yee and Dykes teach or suggest a “composite image” as
recited in claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68, such that the Board misapprehended
or overlooked any point in the newly presented ground.
b. Reason with rational underpinning for combining Yee and Dykes
Patent Owner “submits that it is unclear why one of skill in the art
would have combined the cited Yee and Dykes . . . to arrive at ‘composite
image’ as properly construed under the Phillips standard.” Req. Reh’g 24;
see id. at 24–26 (quoting Dec. 40; Dykes 135) (reproducing Dykes, Fig. 2).
Patent Owner argues that Dykes requires that there be a “small overlap”
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

26
between images, Yee does not disclose the “small overlap” feature allegedly
required by Dykes, and it is thus not clear how Yee would be suitable for
Dykes’s stitching feature. Id. at 26.
We are not persuaded. As the Court states, “when a patent claims a
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). As proposed (see Dec. 25, 39), combining Yee
and Dykes to arrive at a “composite image” (e.g., a panoramic image) is no
more than the simple substitution of one known element (e.g., Yee’s
“composites of them” (Yee 389)) for another (e.g., Dykes’s composite image
arrived at by stitching images together (Dykes 134–36, Fig. 2)) or “the mere
application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Moreover, Patent Owner does not demonstrate adequately that the
proposed combination would not yield the predictable result of a “composite
image” as claims 6, 18, 34, 35, and 68 recite. See Req. Reh’g 24–26. As
Requester indicates (see 3PR Comments 6–7), Yee captures many images,
which would encompass the coverage needed to create Dykes’s panoramic
images. See id. at 7 (citing Yee 391) (noting Yee teaches 10 cameras
capturing 63-degree horizontal, angled views). We further agree with
Requester that Yee teaches or at least suggests to an ordinarily skilled artisan
that some of its images would contain the needed overlap discussed in
Dykes’s stitching techniques (see Dykes 135) as evidenced by (1) the front,
back, left, right, curbside, street, real estate, and address views (see Yee 389,
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

27
391), and (2) collecting data “looking globally” and “comprehensively” to
“ensure[] no object is lost behind an obstruction” (id. at 390).
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
rejection fails to provide a reason with a rational underpinning to combine
Yee and Dykes and arrive at the claims at issue, such that the Board
misapprehended or overlooked a point in the newly presented ground.
3. Remaining claims
Other than referencing the previous arguments made for canceled
independent claims 1, 13, 21, 43, and 55, Patent Owner does not separately
argue claims 2–5, 8–10, 14–16, 20, 24, 26, 29, 36–38, 41, 42, 44–48, 51–54,
56–60, 63–66, and 70–72. Req. Reh’g 26–27. We are not persuaded for the
reasons previously discussed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not identified a point that
the panel misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
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.
B. Ishida/Dykes/Yee
Claims 28, 29, 51, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Ishida, Dykes, and Yee. Decision 47–57. Regarding the combination of
Ishida, Dykes, and Yee, Patent Owner argues: (1) Ishida does not teach the
Web Page Limitations in claim 28 because Ishida does not disclose
displaying information as a web page (Req. Reh’g 27–30) and (2) the
Decision does not clearly articulate how the teachings of Ishida, Dykes, and
Yee would be combined to arrive at claims 29, 51, and 63 (id. at 30–33).
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

28
1. The Web Page Limitations in Claim 28
Patent Owner argues that Ishida does not disclose invoking a display
of a web page for the retail establishment under its proposed construction
because it only discusses displaying information collected from web pages.
Req. Reh’g 28–29 (citing Dec. 50–51; Ishida 24, 28–29). Patent Owner
further argues Ishida does not use a web browser to display the web page.
Id. at 30 (citing Ishida 32–33).
As to the latter argument, we are not persuaded. Based on our
construction in Section I.B, claim 28 does not require using a web browser
to “invok[e] . . . a display of the web page on the display screen” as claim 28
recites.
Regarding whether Ishida discloses “invoking . . . a display of the web
page [for the retail establishment] on the display screen” as claim 28 recites,
we also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. To be sure, Ishida
does not use the term “web page” explicitly when discussing its digital city.
However, Ishida discusses “a 3DML WEB plug-in” (Ishida 27), “any site on
the WEB” (id.), and “a WEB and ftp interface” (Ishida 28) when addressing
“a human interface to Digital City Kyoto that combines 2D maps with
several 3DML spots.” Id. at 27; see also Dec. 50 (stating Ishida’s social
information infrastructure “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”) (emphasis added) (citing Ishida
23–25, 28, Fig. 1; 3PR July 2015 Reh’g Request 8–9 (discussing Ishida’s
three-layer model)), 50–51 (stating “each of these web pages in Ishida (e.g.,
WEB and ftp interface) . . . .”), 53 (stating “Ishida’s WEB interface
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

29
generates a digital city (e.g., a web page)”). Additionally, Ishida describes
its digital city as “the Digital City Kyoto site . . . .” Ishida 31 (emphasis
added).
These portions of Ishida suggest to an ordinarily skilled artisan that its
digital city and web interface displayed on a user’s screen is a web page.
Alternatively, these portions in Ishida at least suggest to an ordinarily skilled
artisan that using a web page to display the information in Ishida’s interface
would have been an obvious variant in light of the similar functionality of
displaying web information. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is
available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces
can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely
bars its patentability.”). Also, a person of ordinary of skill would have had
good reasons to pursue displaying Ishida’s interface as a web page because
this technique was known as evidenced by Ishida. See Ishida 31 (discussing
“the WEB environment” and “bring[ing] up web pages”). As such, Ishida
at least suggests the recited “invoking . . . a display of the web page on the
display screen” as claim 28 recites.
Patent Owner fails to address these passages in Ishida in the Request
for Rehearing. Rather, Patent Owner only quotes portions of the June 2021
Decision discussing that Ishida collects data from various web pages. See
Req. Reh’g 28–29. Moreover, Requester provides another example where a
tour guide agent can bring up web pages. 3PR Comments 9–10 (citing
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

30
Ishida 912) (reproducing Ishida, Fig. 6). Given that Figure 6 shows the city
project includes a web browser to present the information on the display
screen, Ishida at least suggests that Ishida’s digital city “invok[es] . . . a
display of the web pages on the display screen” as claim 28 recites.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the rejection fails to
demonstrate that Ishida, Dykes, and Yee teach or suggest “invoking . . . a
display of the web page on the display screen” as recited in claim 28, such
that the Board misapprehended or overlooked a point in the newly presented
ground based on Ishida, Dykes, and Yee.
2. Reason with rational underpinning related to claims 29, 51, and 63
Claim 29 ultimately depends from independent 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.” The ’025 patent 18:49–52. Claims 51 and 63 ultimately depends
from independent claims 43 and 55 and recite similar recitations to claim 29.
Id. at 20:41–45, 22:1–5. We select claim 29 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Patent Owner “submits that it is unclear from the Decision how one
skilled in the art would combine the teachings of Ishida, Dykes, and Yee to
arrive at the claimed embodiment[] of claim 29.” Req. Reh’g 31; see id. at
31–33. Patent Owner argues that the June 2021 Decision “appears to

12 Requester refers to the pages in Ishida differently in its appeal brief and
the Request. Compare 3PR Appeal Br. 15 (citing Ishida 3, 7), with Request
156–57 (quoting Ishida 25–27). We use similar page numbering to the
Request. For example, in the above citation, page 3 cited in the Requester’s
Appeal Brief is page 25.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

31
equate” Ishida’s “moving objects” with the recited “icon” (id. at 31 (citing
Dec. 57)), but the claims
state that the icon is displayed ‘in association with the particular
one of the objects’ where the antecedent basis for ‘the particular
one of the objects’ is ‘a particular one of the objects depicted in
the first image’ (emphasis added), as recited in claims 27, 49,
and 61, respectively, for claims 29, 51, and 63.

Id. at 31–32. Patent Owner further argues that images captured by Yee
would be static, would not include animations of moving objects, and would
not represent real activities in a physical city. Id. at 32 (citing Ishida 25).
Patent Owner even further argues that “there is no apparent reason why one
of skill in the art would combine the teachings of Ishida, Dykes, and Yee to
arrive at the claimed embodiment[]” of claim 29. Id. at 32–33.
We are not persuaded. First, the new ground of rejection for claim 29
“adopt[ed] Requester’s findings and conclusions how Ishida, Dykes, and
Yee teach or suggest the recitations in these claims.” Dec. 56 (citing 3PR
Appeal Br. 18 (further citing Dykes 139), 20 (further citing “Section VIII.B.l
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)). As Requester explains (see 3PR Comments
11), this adopted ground of rejection discusses Dykes’s teaching related to
hot-linked symbols within a panorama to teach the recited “display of an
icon in association with the particular one of the objects” and clicking the
symbols to teach the recited “user selection is actuation of the icon” as claim
29 recites. See 3PR Comments 11–12 (quoting Dykes 139); see also 3PR
Appeal Br. 18 (citing Dykes 139) (discussing Dykes’s “hot-linked symbols
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

32
within a panorama”). The ground further refers to the Request (3PR Appeal
Br. 20), which provides a reason with a rational underpinning for combining
Dykes with Ishida. See Request 155–56 (stating “a person of ordinary skill
in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings put forward by Ishida
and Dykes to provide a system for creating a navigable digital city by
providing 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) views of a larger city
by providing navigation images collected using Dykes’ teachings.”). The
above reason containing a rational underpinning has not been disputed by
Patent Owner for teaching claim’s 29 limitations. See Req. Reh’g 31–33.
Second, the ground of rejection additionally cites to Ishida’s teaching
related to animation. See Dec. 57 (stating “[a]lso, 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.”) (emphasis added). Although the
objects captured in Yee’s images (see Yee 389) may be static, we fail to see
why Ishida’s teachings related to representing objects (e.g., buses) as
moving objects cannot be included with the images captured by Yee that
include various objects and data. See Yee 389. As one example, the
“animation” of “moving objects” in Ishida (Ishida 25) may include a
flashing object within the image. Moreover, the June 2021 Decision
provides a reason with a rational underpinning for the proposed
combination, including to allow users to communicate with the objects (see
Dec. 51) and further to demonstrate dynamic activities in a virtual city. See
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

33
Ishida 25.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the ground
of rejection fails to provide a reason with a rational underpinning to combine
Ishida, Dykes, and Yee to arrive at the claims at issue, such that the earlier
panel misapprehended or overlooked a point in the newly presented ground.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not identified a point that
the Board misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ishida, Dykes, and Yee for claims 28, 29, 51,
and 63.

CONCLUSION
We have granted the Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have
reconsidered the Decision in light of Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing,
but have denied the Request for Rehearing in all other respects.
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:

Claims 35 U.S.C
§
Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted
2–6, 8–10
14–18, 20,
24, 26, 28,
33–38, 41,
42, 44–48,
51–54,
56–60,
63–68,
70–72
103(a) Yee, Dykes 2–6, 8–10
14–18, 20,
24, 26, 29,
33–38, 41,
42, 44–48,
51–54,
56–60,
63–68,
70–72

28, 29, 51,
63
103(a) Ishida, Dykes, Yee 28, 29, 51,
63

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

34
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

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:

Claims 35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
24, 26,
28, 29,
37, 38,
41, 42,
44–48,
51–54,
6313

24, 26,
28, 29,
37, 38,
41, 42,
44–48,
51–54, 63

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,
24, 26,
29,
33–38,
41, 42,
44–48,
51–54,
56–60,

13 These claims previously were confirmed or found patentable by the
Examiner. See Dec. 58–59.
Appeal 2015-001495
Reexamination Control 95/000,681
Patent 7,805,025 B2

35
63–68,
70–72
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
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

Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2665; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.

DENIED

PATENT OWNER:

Lewis, Roca, Rothgerber, Christie LLP
P. O. Box. 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001

THIRD PARTY:

O’Meleveny & Myers LLP
IP & T Calendar Department
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899