7805025 et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 16, 20212015001495 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 95/000,681 08/27/2012 7805025 13557-105153.R1 7654 23363 7590 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation