7,813,596 B2 et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2021

2018007745 (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.
95/000,684 08/17/2012 7,813,596 B2 7571
23363 7590 12/16/2021
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
PO BOX 29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
EXAMINER
FOSTER, ROLAND G
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 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 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
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceedings involve U.S. Patent No. 7,813,596 B2 (“the ’596
patent), which expired on January 11, 2021. Dec. 2.1 This proceeding is
also related to Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,681–95/000,683,
involving U.S. Patent Nos. 7,805,025 B2, 7,239,760 B2, and 7,577,316 B2
respectively, all of which have also expired.
As previously explained (see Dec. 1), 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 August 15,
2016, September 28, 2018, and February 1, 2019. See id.; see also 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 the rejections of claims 4 and 21

1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) the Request for Inter Partes
Reexamination (“Request”) filed August 17, 2012, (2) the Right of Appeal
Notice (RAN) mailed June 4, 2014, (3) the Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
(PO Appeal Br.) filed September 3, 2014, (4) the Board’s Decision mailed
June 1, 2021 (“Dec.”), (5) Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing (“Req.
Reh’g”) filed July 1, 2021, and (6) 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 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

3
based on at least one of Dykes,3 Yee,4 Al-Kodmany,5 Bates,6 Murphy,7
Shiffer,8 and Ishida9 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), 102(b), or 103(a) and (2)
entering new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) for (a) claim 4
based on Yee, Dykes, and Lachinski10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and (b)
claims 4 and 21 based on Ishida, Yee, and Dykes under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dec. 3, 7–8, 19–38.
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.

3 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”).
4 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”).
5 Kheir Al-Kodmany, Using Web-Based Technologies and Geographic
Information Systems in Community Planning, 7 J. Urb. Tech. 1–31 (2000) (“Al-
Kodmany”).
6 Nada Bates-Brkljac & John Counsell, Issues in Participative Use of an
Historic City Millennial Web Site, IEEE Proc. Int’l Conf. Info. Visualization
119–25 (July 2000) (“Bates”).
7 US 6,282,362 B1, issued Aug. 28, 2001.
8 Michael J. Shiffer, Augmenting Geographic Information with
Collaborative Multimedia Technologies, 11 Proc. Auto Carto. 367–76
(1993) (“Shiffer”).
9 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”).
10 US 5,633,946, issued on May 27, 1997.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

4
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).
Patent Owner argues that the June 2021 Decision does not construe
several terms in the claims of the ’596 patent under their ordinary and
customary meanings. Req. Reh’g 2. These terms include “a composite
image” in claim 4 (id. at 2–8) and “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 21 (id. at
8–10, 17). Patent Owner also asserts that Yee alone or Yee, Dykes, and
Lachinski do not disclose a “composite image” in claim 4. Id. at 10–16.
Regarding the combination of Ishida, Yee, and Dykes, Patent Owner argues
Ishida does not teach (1) “a composite image” (id. at 16) or (2) the Web
Page Limitations in claim 21 because Ishida does not disclose displaying
information as a web page (id. at 17–19).
Requester disagrees. See generally 3PR Comments 1–11.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

5
We address each of Patent Owner’s contentions below.

ANALYSIS
I. Claim construction
A. “[A] composite image” in claim 4
Claim 4 depends from canceled independent claim 1.11 The phrase “a
composite image” is found in claim 4. The ’596 patent 16:7. In the June
2021 Decision, the Board found this phrase in claim 4 means “a single
image created by combining different image data or [by] uniting image data .
. . .” Dec. 17.
Patent Owner asserts that the phrase “composite image,” as defined in
the June 2021 Decision, is “unclear” because “it does not define what is
meant by ‘single image.’” Req. Reh’g 3–4. Patent Owner argues that
“single image,” consistent with the ’596 patent’s Specification, “would be
understood to refer to a single image that is created by uniting those multiple
image frames into a single image.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner also argues that
“a composite image” “[a]s used in the Vederi patents” (1) “depicts a single
new view of the objects in the geographical area” (id. (citing the ’596 patent,
5:54–61, 9:10–21)), (2) “[t]he single new view is different from any of the
views depicted in any one of the individual image frames prior to forming
the composite image” (id. (citing the ’596 patent 2:37–39, 5:47–51)), and (3)
“would not encompass a collage of disparate images,” including “a two-by-
two grid of views of four different participants on a video conference” (id. at

11 As explained in the June 2021 Decision, independent claims 1 and 15
have been canceled. See Dec. 3.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

6
8). For support, Patent Owner quotes and cites to various passages of the
’596 patent. See id. at 4–7 (quoting the ’596 patent, 1:27–57, 2:10–12,
2:19–20, 2:33–39, 3:46–49, 5:45–51) (citing the ’596 patent, Abstract, 3:54–
57, 5:45–6:5) (reproducing the ’596 patent, Fig. 16; Provisional Application
No. 60/238,490, Fig. 11). Patent Owner concludes that “‘composite image’”
under the Phillips12 standard” and consistent with the ’596 patent, “refers to
a single image created by combining different image data or by uniting
image data[,] where the single image provides a single view.” Id. at 8.
Requester asserts Patent Owner’s arguments were previously rejected
by the Board and the Federal Circuit. See 3PR Comments 2–4 (citing
Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503; Dec. 15; the ’596 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. 16).
The Board gave the claim recitations in the ’596 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. 8 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13); see id. at 15 nn.11–13
(addressing the term “composite”) (citing Merriam-Webster’s Online
Dictionary (11th ed.)). Additionally, the Board panel 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 8–9 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citations omitted)).
Consistent with these principles, the Board has considered how the

12 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

7
Specification describes “a composite image” in arriving at the current claim
construction. See id. at 14–16 (citing the ’596 patent, Abstract, 2:22–24,
2:34–36, 3:46–49, 5:45–47, 5:66–6:1, Fig. 2).
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.”
Dec. 15–16 (quoting Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 503). Notably, the Federal
Circuit rejected Vederi’s proffered
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 the June 2021 Decision 15–16
(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 claim 4 was construed
inconsistent with the ’596 patent or its plain and ordinary meaning as an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood.
B. “[A] web page for the retail establishment” in claim 21
Claim 21 ultimately depends from canceled independent claim 15 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 ’596 patent, 18:10–12. Regarding the recitation “web
page for the retail establishment,” the June 2021 Decision states “we
understand the ordinary meaning of this phrase to include a web page that
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

8
(1) shows particular information about the retail establishment or (2) is
associated with a particular retail establishment.” Dec. 18.
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 9. 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
scripts (e.g., VBScript or JavaScript)[], and a Web browser
renders a Web page to be displayed to a user.

Id. at 10; see id. n.1 (citing Web page, The American Heritage® Dictionary
of the English Language (“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”), 17 (same); id. at 9–
10 (citing the ’025 patent 12:53–56, Fig. 1613) (omitting footnote).
Requester contends that the Federal Circuit found “for this exact
term[,] that . . . ‘[t]he specification does nothing to limit [the] broad claim
language’ at issue.” 3PR Comments 8 (quoting Vederi, 813 F. App’x at
504).14 Requester asserts that Patent Owner does “[n]ot 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 ’596 patent’s Specification. Id. at 8–9

13 Column 12, lines 53–56 and Figure 16 of the ’596 patent are similar to
U.S. 7,805,025 B2 (“the ’025 patent”). See 3PR Comments 9 n.4.
14 The quotation is found at Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 505.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

9
(citing Req. Reh’g 10 n.1; Web page, The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language; the ’596 patent 12:53–56).
We did not construe the phrase “web page” explicitly in the June 2021
Decision. We did consider the ’596 patent cited by Patent Owner in
addressing what “a web page for the 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. 18 (discussing the ’596 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 21 recites. Vederi, 813 F. App’x at 505. As such,
contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions (see Req. Reh’g 10), the Specification
does not define or limit the phrase “web page” found in claim 21 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 as Patent Owner argues.
Additionally, although the Specification’s column 12 describes an
embodiment that “preferably” displays a web page “on a separate browser
window” (the ’596 patent 12:55–56), we decline to import this specific
embodiment into claim 21, which only recites “invoking . . . a display of the
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

10
web page on the display screen” without limiting this invocation to using a
web browser. Id. at 18:11–12; 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. 16.
That said, 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” as an ordinary meaning of
this term. Web page, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, cited in Req. Reh’g 10. Other than disputing the “unduly narrow
construction requiring a ‘web browser’[,]” Requester has not challenged this
proposed ordinary meaning of “web page.” See 3PR Comments 8–9. On
the record, 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 “a web page”
as claim 21 recites.
We thus disagree that the Board overlooked or misapprehended an
argument that the phrase “a web page” in claim 21 was construed
inconsistent with the ’596 patent or its plain and ordinary meaning as an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood it. 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.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

11
II. New grounds based on prior art
A. Yee, Lachinski, and Dykes
The June 2021 Decision presented a new ground of rejection for
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee, Lachinski, and Dykes. See
Dec. 19–27.
1. “[A] composite image”
Patent Owner argues that Yee does not disclose “a composite image”
in claim 4 “under the proper construction of the term under the Phillips
standard” consistent with the ’596 patent. Req. Reh’g 10; see id. at 10–14.
Patent Owner contends Yee fails to provide examples of “composites of
them” and Lachinski does not use the word “composite.” Id. at 11. Patent
Owner also argues that the GeoSpan Brochure15 “provides a clear example
of a ‘composite view’ as the term was used by GeoSpan, which is the system
described by Yee” and “clarifies the meaning of ‘composites of them’ as the
term was used in Yee . . . .” Id. at 12 (reproducing the image in the GeoSpan
Brochure on GEO_0000173). Patent Owner contends “there is no other
evidence cited from the record associated with [the] Yee reference (e.g.,
related to the work by the GeoSpan Corporation) that uses the word
‘composite’ or variants thereof.” Id.; see id. at 12–13 (citing Yee 389;
Dec. 25). Patent Owner argues the GeoSpan Brochure’s figure “show[s]
four images,” and it “would be . . . uncustomary” (id. at 13) to an ordinarily

15 DRIVE AROUND TOWN ON YOUR PC WITH GEOVISTA, VISUAL
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION, GEO_0000172–177 (“the GeoSpan Brochure’).
Patent Owner asserts this reference was included in its January 8, 2013
Reply “as Appx1332.” Req. Reh’g 11. Patent Owner also indicates this
reference is attached as Exhibit A. Id. at 12.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

12
skilled artisan to consider this figure as “a single image” (id. at 14).
As addressed in Section I.A, we determined that the phrase
“composite image” consistent with the ’596 patent and its plain and ordinary
meaning is “a single image created by combining different image data or
[by] uniting image data” (Dec. 17), 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 (see id. at 15–16).
Additionally, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, Yee provides
some evidence of what its composites will be. As stated in the June 2021
Decision,
Yee actually discloses “composites.” That is, Yee states
“[s]ome of the specific data to be collected and made available .
. . include: 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.” Yee 389
(emphasis added). This portion of Yee explicitly discloses a
composite image (i.e., “composite of them”). Id. Notably, the
language “composites of them” in Yee is separate from the
other described views, including the 4-view, and “them” refers
back to the other discussed views, including a curbside view, a
street view, and a real estate view.

Dec. 22 (latter two emphases added); see also Yee 389; 3PR Comments 4–6
(noting Yee explicitly used the term “composite” and provides that the
composite can be of any of the above-described views) (citing Dec. 22–24).
Regarding the GeoSpan Brochure, we are not persuaded that this
demonstrates Yee’s “composites of them” are only four images rather than a
single image. See Req. Reh’g 13–14. Although “GeoVista” and “GeoSpan”
are discussed in Yee (see, e.g., Yee 388, 392), there is insufficient evidence
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

13
that the “4-way” view in the GeoSpan Brochure demonstrates the only
possible 4-view that Yee creates. See Dec. 24–25 (stating “Patent Owner
presumes the example from ‘the GeoSpan Brochure’[] (PO Appeal Br. 22
n.2) is the only ‘4-view’ that Yee envisions”) (footnote omitted). Also, the
reproduced image in the Request for Rehearing (Req. Reh’g 12) 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. 22 (stating “the language ‘composites
of them’ in Yee is separate from the other described views, including the 4-
view”) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, regardless of whether Lachinski uses the word
“composite” (Req. Reh’g 11), we find that Lachinski provides insight as to
what Yee’s “4-view” may be. Specifically, the June 2021 Decision
determined:
Yee discusses a “4-view” example but does not provide details
concerning how the view is formed. See [Yee] 389. Lachinski,
which is a patent assigned to GeoSpan Corporation (Lachinski,
code (73)), explains:
The four-view generator 62 has four inputs 82,
allowing signals from four of the video cameras 50
to be input simultaneously. The generator 62
reduces the image represented by each signal to
one-fourth of its original size and then combines
the reduced images to form a single video image
by placing each of the reduced images into one of
the four corners of an output image.
Id. at 5:25–31 (emphasis added), Fig. 3. Thus, the 4-view
discussed in Yee (Yee 389) can be produced as a single image
that combines four reduced images (e.g., different image data at
the pixel data level), one in each of four corners that is reduced
in size as taught by Lachinski’s known technique.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

14
. . . [E]ach of the “four views in a frame” discussed in
Yee (Yee 392) or the “single video image” with four reduced
views (e.g., one-fourth of its original size that form “reduced
images” as explained in Lachinski (Lachinski 5:25–31)) is a
single image that is made up of different parts or image frames
(e.g., image data from multiple views) and combines pixel
image data from each of the different view image frames
collectively to create the single 4-view image. Yee, as
evidenced by Lachinski, therefore teaches and suggests another
example of “a composite image” as claim 4 recites.

Dec. 25–26 (emphases added); see also 3PR Comments 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”) (citing Yee 392;
Lachinski 5:25–31, Fig. 3) (footnote omitted).
Lastly, Patent Owner’s arguments (Req. Reh’g 10–14) overlook the
Decision’s further discussion of Dykes’s teachings in this regard. The June
2021 Decision additionally states:
To the extent that Yee’s “composites of them” are not
considered to teach or suggest “each composite image is created
by processing pixel data of a plurality of the image frames” as
claim 4 recites (for which we do not agree), the rejection
further relies on Dykes. Dykes teaches a known technique for
creating “composites” by combining and uniting image data
(e.g., stitching) to produce a panoramic image. Dykes 132–36,
Fig. 2. When substituting Dykes’s known technique of forming
a composite (e.g., a panoramic image) for Yee’s composite
image forming technique, “the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.[16] . . . Thus,
combining Dykes’s teaching related to creating “a composite
image” with Yee would have improved on Yee’s system by
providing educational information, evoking a visual and engaging

16 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

15
experience, and provide the ability to navigate across a virtual
space. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Dec. 23–24 (emphasis added); 3PR Comments 6 (citing Dec. 23; Sept. 2018
Decision 10 (vacated)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the rejection fails to
demonstrate that Yee, Lachinski, and Dykes teach or suggest “a composite
image” as recited in claim 4, such that the Board misapprehended or
overlooked a point in the newly presented ground.
2. Rational underpinning for combining Yee, Dykes, and Lachinski
Patent Owner “submits that it is unclear why one of skill in the art
would have combined the cited Yee, Dykes, and Lachinski . . . to arrive at
‘composite image’ as properly construed under the Phillips standard.” Req.
Reh’g 14; see id. at 14–16 (quoting Dec. 23; Dykes 135) (reproducing
Dykes, Fig. 2). Patent Owner argues that Dykes requires that there be a
“small overlap” between images, Yee does not disclose the “small overlap”
feature allegedly required by Dykes, and “it is unclear that the images
acquired by Yee are suitable for use in the ‘stitching feature’ allegedly
described by Dykes.” Id. at 16.
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, 550 U.S. at 417. As
stated (see Dec. 23), 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
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

16
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 claim 4 recites. See Req. Reh’g 14–16. As Requester indicates
(see 3PR Comments 7–8), 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, 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 to arrive at the claims at issue, such that the Board
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 of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yee, Lachinski, and Dykes.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

17
B. Ishida, Yee, and Dykes
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Ishida, Yee, and Dykes. Dec. 19, 27–37. Regarding the combination of
Ishida, Yee, and Dykes, Patent Owner argues: (1) Ishida does not describe
“a composite image” as claim 4 recites (Req. Reh’g 16), and (2) Ishida does
not teach the Web Page Limitations in claim 21 because Ishida does not
disclose invoking a display of a web page for a retail establishment (id. at
17–19).
1. “[A] composite image” in Claim 4
Patent Owner argues Ishida does not describe “a composite image” as
claim 4 recites. Req. Reh’g 16. This assertion, however, fails to account for
the teachings of Dykes related to “a composite image” as the rejection is
formulated. See Dec. 27 (citing Request 210–222; RAN 17–19); see also
Request 220–22 (citing Dykes 134–35, Fig. 2 to teach claim 4’s recitations)
(reproducing Dykes, Fig. 2 (annotated)). One cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually where the rejection, as is here, is based
on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, as discussed above in the context of the
rejection based on the Yee, Lachinski, and Dykes, Yee alone or Yee and
Dykes in combination further teach or suggest creating “a composite image”
as claim 4 recites. We refer to Section II.A.1 for more details.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the rejection fails to
demonstrate that Ishida, Yee, and Dykes teach or suggest “a composite
image” as recited in claim 4, such that the Board misapprehended or
overlooked a point in the newly presented ground.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

18
2. The Web Page Limitations in Claim 21
Patent Owner argues that Ishida does not disclose “invoking . . . a
display of the web page” for the retail establishment under its proposed
construction because it only discusses displaying information from a web
page, not the web page itself. See Req. Reh’g 17–19 (quoting Dec. 50–5117;
Ishida 28–29) (citing Ishida 24). Patent Owner further argues Ishida does
not use a web browser to display the web page. Id. at 19 (citing Ishida 32–
33).
As to the latter argument, we are not persuaded. Based on our
construction in Section I.B, claim 21 does not require using a web browser
to “invok[e] . . . a display of the web page on the display screen” as recited.
Regarding whether Ishida discloses “invoking . . . a display of the web
page [for the retail establishment] on the display screen” found in claim 21,
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” (id. at 28) when addressing
“a human interface to Digital City Kyoto that combines 2D maps with
several 3DML spots.” Id. at 27; see also Dec. 28 (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, 28–30, Fig. 5(b)), 28–29 (stating “each of these web pages in Ishida
(e.g., WEB and ftp interface)”), 31 (discussing “WEB pages that are part of

17 The quotation comes from the June 2021 Decision at pages 28–29.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

19
Ishida’s digital city interface”). Additionally, Ishida describes its digital city
as “the Digital City Kyoto site.” Ishida 31 (emphasis added). We thus
disagree that Ishida does not state how the information in Ishida is displayed
as Patent Owner argues. See Req. Reh’g 19. That is, the above passages
address using an interaction layer (Ishida 25), a 3DML WEB plug-in (id. at
27), a WEB and ftp interface (id. at 28), and a WEB environment (id. at 31).
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 21 recites.
Patent Owner fails to address the above-noted passages in Ishida in
the Request for Rehearing. Rather, Patent Owner quotes portions of the
June 2021 Decision discussing that Ishida collects data from various web
pages. See Req. Reh’g 17–18. Moreover, Requester provides another
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

20
example where a tour guide agent can bring up web pages. 3PR Comments
9–10 (citing Ishida 918) (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 page on the display screen” as claim 21
recites.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the rejection fails to
demonstrate that Ishida, Yee, and Dykes teach or suggest “invoking . . . a
display of the web page on the display screen” as recited in claim 21, such
that the Board misapprehended or overlooked a point in the newly presented
ground based on Ishida, Yee, and Dykes.
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, Yee, and Dykes for claims 4 and 21.

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.

18 Requester refers to the pages in Ishida differently in its comments and the
Request. Compare 3PR Comments 9 (citing Ishida 9), with Request 235–36
(quoting Ishida 30–31). We use similar page numbering to the Request. For
example, in the above citation, page 9 cited in the Requester’s comments is
page 31.
Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

21
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:

Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted
4 103(a) Yee, Dykes,
Lachinski
4
4, 21 103(a) Ishida, Yee, Dykes 4, 21
Overall
Outcome
4, 21

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing:

Claim(s) 35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
4 102(a) Dykes 4
4 102(b) Yee 4
4 102(a) Al-Kodmany 4
4 102(a) Bates 4
4 103(a) Murphy, Yee 4
4 103(a) Shiffer, Yee 4
4, 21 103(a) Ishida, Dykes 4, 21
4 103(a) Yee, Dykes,
Lachinski
4
4, 21 103(a) Ishida, Yee, Dykes 4, 21
Overall
Outcome
4, 21 4, 21

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

Appeal 2018-007745
Reexamination Control 95/000,684
Patent 7,813,596 B2

22
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