Ex Parte 8624958 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

96000129 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

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.
96/000,129 12/04/2015 8624958 MENF-5-P-19863RE 8911
1224 7590 07/17/2018
BOOTH ALBANESI SCHROEDER PLLC
10000 North Central Expressway
Suite 400
DALLAS, TX 75231
EXAMINER
WEAVER, SCOTT LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2018 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
____________

Ex parte TRUE VOYAGER, LLC
Appellant and Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2018-005535
Reexamination Control 96/000,129
Patent 8,624,958 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC B. CHEN, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2018-005535
Reexamination Control 96/000,129
Patent 8,624,958 B2

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7–10, 12–18, 23, 24, 26–30, 32, 33, and 44–49.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 19–22, 25 and 31 have been cancelled during the
reexamination proceeding. Claims 34–43 are not subject to reexamination.
We have jurisdiction under §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A request for supplemental examination of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,958
B2 (the ’958 patent) was filed on December 4, 2015, and assigned
Reexamination Control No. 96/000,129.
The ’958 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Accessing Multi-
Dimensional Mapping and Information,” issued January 7, 2014, to Felipe
Mendoza and Ward Harnish Loving, based on Application No. 12/778,657,
filed May 12, 2010.
The ’958 patent is said to be assigned to True Voyager, LLC, said to
be the assignee and real party in interest.

Patent Owner’s Invention
Patent Owner’s invention relates an interactive mapping and
panoramic imaging application, such that a panoramic image is displayed on
a screen and is navigable in response to input by a user. Hotspots are
embedded in the panoramic image corresponding geographically adjacent
locations. A text panel is displaying, containing textual information
corresponding to the displayed panoramic image. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

3
The Claims
Claims 1 and 15 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics and
with underlining and bracketing to indicate claim amendments:
1. A method of simultaneous display of map and
image data, comprising the steps of:
(a) displaying on a computer screen [at least] one of a
plurality of 360 degree panoramic images stored in a non-
transitory computer readable media, each of the [at least one]
panoramic images corresponding to a geographical location, the
displayed panoramic image navigable in response to a first
user input [by a user] activating any one of a plurality of hot
spots or links embedded and positioned in the displayed
panoramic image, the displayed panoramic image also
rotatable and zoomable;
(b) displaying on the computer screen, simultaneously
with displaying the [at least one] displayed panoramic image,
[at least one] an overhead representational or photographic map
image corresponding to the displayed [at least one] panoramic
image, wherein the displayed map image is navigable in
response to a second user input [by the user] activating any one
of a plurality of hot spots or links embedded and positioned in
the displayed map image; [and]
(c) displaying on the computer screen, simultaneously with
displaying the [at least one] displayed panoramic image and the [at
least one] displayed map image, textual information corresponding to
the [at least one] displayed panoramic image; and
(d) repeatedly updating the displayed panoramic image,
the displayed map image, and the displayed textual information,
in response to a user repeatedly navigating within the displayed
panoramic image or on the displayed map image.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of
panoramic images each allow a user to virtually see what one
would actually see if physically present at the geographical
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

4
location [physically] at the time the panoramic image was
taken.

The Rejections
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 15 and 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7–9, 12–18, 23, 24, 26–30, 32, 33, 44, and 48 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Di Bernardo (US
6,895,126 B2; May 17, 2005), Jongerius (US 6,563,529 B1; May 13, 2003),
and Jackson (US 5,990,941; Nov. 23, 1999).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Lipscomb (US 6,230,167 B1; May 8,
2001).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Patent Owner’s admitted prior art.
Claims 45–47 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Foote (US
7,096,428 B2; Aug. 22, 2006).

ANALYSIS
§ 112(a) Rejection
We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 3; see also
Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner erred in concluding that the limitation
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

5
“wherein the plurality of panoramic images each allow a user to virtually see
what one would actually see if physically present at the geographical
location at the time the panoramic image was taken” is not enabled by the
Specification of the ’958 patent.
The Examiner concluded that “[t]he claim(s) contains subject matter
which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention.” (Final Act. 12.) In particular,
the Examiner found that “[t]he specification does not reasonably provide
enablement for the image which would ‘allow the user to virtually see what
one would actually see if present at the geographical location physically’ as
recited in claim 15” because “[t]he language of claim 15 implies the
panoramic images (stored in claim 1) and being displayed to a user include
dynamic real time images.” (Id.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 15.
Independent claim 1 recites “a plurality of 360 degree panoramic
images stored in a non-transitory computer readable media” (emphases
added). Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the plurality of
panoramic images each allow a user to virtually see what one would actually
see if physically present at the geographical location at the time the
panoramic image was taken” (emphasis added). Thus, the earlier recitation
of “a plurality of . . . degree panoramic images stored in a non-transitory
computer readable media” in claim 1 provides an antecedent basis for the
later recitation of “the plurality of panoramic images” in dependent
claim 15. Thus, dependent claim 15 requires “the plurality of panoramic
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

6
images” to be previously stored “in a non-transitory computer readable
media.” Moreover, claim 15 recites “allow a user to virtually see what one
would actually see if physically present at the geographical location” which
is further modified by the phrase “at the time the panoramic image was
taken,” meaning that such panoramic images were taken in the past.
Thus, when the language “allow a user to virtually see what one
would actually see if physically present at the geographical location” is read
in the context of the entire claim, which includes the modifier “at the time
the panoramic image was taken” and the requirement that the panoramic
images are previously stored in a non-transitory computer readable media,
claim 15 would not encompass dynamic real-time images.
Thus, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that:
Instead, the invention’s images allow a user to see (in the present)
what one would see if present “at the time the panoramic image
was taken” (in the past). The insistence on an interpretation
allowing for “real time” images is unreasonable: nowhere does
Applicant present a claim, a description in the Specification, or
an argument that allows presentation of “real time” images.
(Reply Br. 2.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement
requirement.
Claim 16 depends from dependent claim 15. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons
discussed with respect to dependent claim 15.

Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

7
§ 112(b) Rejection
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) for the same reasons discussed with the rejection of claims 15 and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

§ 103 Rejection—Di Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson
First, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 5–
7; see also Reply Br. 3–4) that the combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius,
and Jackson would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “displaying on a computer screen at least one of a
plurality of 360 degree panoramic images.”
The Examiner found that Figure 16 of Di Bernardo, which illustrates
composite image 40 displayed on image area 224, corresponds to the
limitation “displaying on a computer screen one of a plurality of . . .
panoramic images.” (Final Act. 15; see also Ans. 7.) The Examiner further
found that the virtual tours of Jongerius, which use 360° panoramic images,
correspond to the limitation “360 degree panoramic images.” (Final
Act. 15.) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to
modify Di Bernardo to display 360 degree panoramic images as taught by
Jongerius because ‘a fully clear 360° image, shows much more than can be
seen by a human since a human’s view angle is limited to about 140°.’” (Id.
(citing col. 4, ll. 15–18); see also Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions.
Di Bernardo relates to “synthesizing images of a locale to generate a
composite image that provide a panoramic view of the locale.” (Abstract.)
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

8
Figure 16 of Di Bernardo illustrates a “graphical user interface [GUI] for
allowing the user to place requests and receive information about particular
geographic locations” (col. 3, ll. 28–30), which includes address input fields
220, “See It” button 222 (col. 12, ll. 30–36), image area 224, map area 226
(col. 12, ll. 40–42), current location identifier 228 (col. 12, ll. 42–46), and
information icons 234 (col. 12, ll. 59–60). Because Di Bernardo relates to
viewing panoramic images and Figure 16 illustrates a GUI allowing the user
to place requests and receive information about particular geographic
locations, Di Bernardo teaches the limitation “displaying on a computer
screen one of a plurality of . . . panoramic images.”
Jongerius relates to “displaying a detailed field of view and a direction
when viewing panoramic images.” (Col. 1, ll. 32–34.) In the “Description
of [the] Prior Art” section, Jongerius explains that “[u]sing panoramic
images to present virtual (computer-simulated) tours of real physical
environments is becoming commonplace” and “[m]any virtual tours use
360° panoramic images and employ a detail viewer.” (Col. 1, ll. 36–39.)
Figure 1 of Jongerius illustrates a photo of a full (360°) panoramic image of
a shopping area on a computer display (col. 2, ll. 64–65) with a “fully clear
360° image, shows much more than can be seen by a human since a human’s
view angle is limited to about 140°, and of this, only about 30° to 50° is
clear or in focus” (col. 4, ll. 15–18). Because Figure 1 of Jongerius
illustrates a full 360° panoramic image on a computer display, Jongerius
teaches the limitation “360 degree panoramic images.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the full 360° panoramic image of Jongerius, with the GUI of
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

9
Di Bernardo, would improve Di Bernardo by providing the advantage of a
clear 360° image, which is greater than a human’s viewing angle of about
140°. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). (“[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 15)
that modifying Di Bernardo to incorporate the full 360° panoramic image of
Jongerius would have been obvious.
Patent Owner argues that “[t]he ‘composite image’ of Di Bernardo is
not the same as the Applicants claimed ‘panoramic image,’ nor does Di
Bernardo use such terminology” and “[t]he Action conflates the two types of
image by referring to Di Bernardo’s ‘composite images’ as ‘panoramic
images.’” (App. Br. 5.) Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Di
Bernardo relates to “synthesizing images of a locale to generate a composite
image that provide a panoramic view of the locale.” (Abstract.)
Patent Owner further argues that “[u]sing computer-generated images
apparently taken by a fictitious camera from a fictitious location, Di
Bernardo teaches away from Applicants’ claims for displaying one of a
plurality of 360 degree panoramic images.” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis
omitted).) In particular, Patent Owner argues that “Di Bernardo flat out
states that use of a panoramic image would not work: ‘the nature of the
acquired imagery . . . limits [its] usefulness . . . since [a] single image . . .
contains a narrow field of view . . . due to the limited viewing angle of the
video camera’” and “[t]his narrow field of view provides little context . . .
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

10
Thus, a user. . . may find it difficult to orient himself . . . , get familiar with
the locale, and navigate through the database . . . .’” (App. Br. 5 (quoting
col. 1, ll. 45–53); see also Reply Br. 3–4.) However, Patent Owner cites the
“Background of the Invention” section of Di Bernardo, which describes
deficiencies with the prior art. As a solution to “the abovementioned
deficiencies associated with the prior art,” Di Bernardo explains that “the
present invention is directed to a computer-implemented system and method
for synthesizing images of a geographic location to generate composite
images of the location.” (Col. 2, ll. 13–18.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “displaying on a computer screen one
of a plurality of 360 degree panoramic images.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument (App.
Br. 6–10; see also Reply Br. 7–9) that the combination of Di Bernardo,
Jongerius, and Jackson would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “the displayed panoramic image
navigable in response to a first user input activating any one of a plurality of
hot spots or links embedded and positioned in the displayed panoramic
image.”
The Examiner found that Figure 16 of Di Bernardo, which illustrates
composite image 40 displayed on the image area 224, including current
location cursor 228, corresponds to the limitation “the displayed panoramic
image navigable in response to a first user input.” (Final Act. 15–16.) The
Examiner also found that information icons 234 of Di Bernardo corresponds
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

11
to the limitation “one of a plurality of hot spots or links.” (Ans. 12.) The
Examiner further found that the “hot spots” of Jackson, which can be placed
in an image, corresponds to the limitation “embedded and positioned in the
displayed . . . image.” (Final Act. 16.) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t
would have been obvious . . . to further modify Di Bernardo as modified in
view of Jongerius to activate hot spots or links embedded within the
panoramic image as taught by Jackson ‘to allow the placement of active
areas (“hot spots”) on the images that allow the sequencing of images or
other information.’” (Id. (quoting col. 4, ll. 3–10).) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
As discussed previously, Figure 16 of Di Bernardo illustrates a
“graphical user interface [GUI] for allowing the user to place requests and
receive information about particular geographic locations” (col. 3, ll. 28–30),
which includes image area 224 (col. 12, l. 42), current location identifier 228
(col. 12, ll. 43–46), and information icons 234 (col. 12, ll. 59–60). Di
Bernardo explains that “[t]he map is preferably centered around the
requested address and includes a current location cursor 228 placed on a
position corresponding to the address” (col. 12, ll. 42–45) and “[t]he
composite image is also updated as the user navigates through the streets
using the navigation buttons 232” (col. 13, ll. 22–23). Di Bernardo further
explains “[t]he user may obtain information about the objects being
visualized in the composite image by actuating one of the information
icons 234 above the image of a particular object.” (Col. 12, ll. 49–52.)
Because Di Bernardo explains that the map includes current location cursor
228 and is navigable, Di Bernardo teaches the limitation “the displayed
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

12
panoramic image navigable in response to a first user input.” Furthermore,
because Di Bernardo explains that information icons 234 provides the user
with information about the objects being visualized, Di Bernardo teaches the
limitation “any one of a plurality of hot spots or links.”
Jackson relates to image processing systems. (Col. 1, ll. 23–24.)
Jackson explain that one “object of the invention is to allow the placement of
active areas (‘hot spots’) on the images that allow the sequencing of images
or other information (text, video, audio, other spherical images, etc . . .)
when activated by selection with the mouse, joystick, or keyboard.” (Col. 4,
ll. 3–7.) Because Jackson explains that “hot spots” are placed in images that
summons additional information when activated by selection, Jackson
teaches the limitation “any one of a plurality of hot spots or links embedded
and positioned in the displayed . . . image.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the “hot spots” of Jackson with the GUI of Di Bernardo, as
modified by Jongerius, would improve Di Bernardo by providing the
advantage to allowing the placement such “hot spots” on the images that
summons additional information when activated by selection. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would result in the placement of
information icons 234 of Di Bernardo in image area 224, as taught by
Jackson. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 16) that modifying
Di Bernardo and Jongerius to incorporate the “hot spots” of Jackson onto
images would have been obvious.
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

13
Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Action’s reference to Di Bernardo’s
display of ‘icons 234’ is confusing” and “[t]he icons 234 are not map images
or composite images; the icons 234 are not part of a map image or composite
image; the icons are not positioned in a map image or composite image.”
(App. Br. 7 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 7–8.) However, the
Examiner cited to information icons 234 of Di Bernardo for teaching the
limitation “any one of a plurality of hot spots or links” and cited to Jackson
for teaching the limitation “embedded and positioned in the displayed . . .
image.” (Ans. 12.) The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of
Di Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson, and Patent Owner cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Patent Owner also argues that “[w]hile it is true that the icons appear
after navigating from the map . . . , the icons are not a means to navigate the
map image or composite image. (App. Br. 7–8 (emphasis omitted); see also
Reply Br. 7–8.) However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate
in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not require the “plurality of
hot spots or links” to be a means of navigation.
Patent Owner further argues that “[t]he Action inaccurately . . .
misleadingly, quotes from Jackson.” (App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 8–9.)
In particular, Patent Owner argues that “[t]he underlined/italicized portion
[‘when activated by selection with the mouse, joystick, or keyboard, and to
allow the user to navigate through images in a controlled sequence’] is not
part of the same sentence, or even paragraph, as the initial portion” and
“[c]ritical intervening language is omitted.” (App. Br. 8.) Even if Patent
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

14
Owner is correct that the Examiner “inaccurately . . . misleadingly, quotes
from Jackson” and “[c]ritical intervening language is omitted,” Patent
Owner has not demonstrated why the purported omission of intervening
language results in the improper combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius,
and Jackson. Also discussed previously, the combination of Di Bernardo,
Jongerius, and Jackson is based on the improvement of a similar device in
the same way as in the prior art.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “the displayed panoramic image
navigable in response to a first user input activating any one of a plurality of
hot spots or links embedded and positioned in the displayed panoramic
image.”
Third, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App.
Br. 11–12; see also Reply Br. 9) that the combination of Di Bernardo,
Jongerius, and Jackson would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “the displayed panoramic image also
rotatable and zoomable.”
The Examiner found that the “Switch View” and close-up view
features of Di Bernardo for image area 224 correspond to the limitation “the
displayed panoramic image also rotatable and zoomable.” (Final Act. 16;
see also Ans. 13–14.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Di Bernardo explains that “[a] ‘Switch View’ button 230 allows the
user to update the current composite image providing a view of one side of
the street with a composite image of the other side of the street.” (Col. 13,
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

15
ll. 10–12.) Di Bernardo further explains that “[t]he user may obtain a close-
up view of a particular object in the composite image by selecting the object
in the image.” (Col. 13, ll. 1–2.) Because Di Bernardo explains that
“Switch View” button 230 allows the user to update a view of one side of
the street with a composite image of the other side of the street and the user
can also obtain a close-up view of a particular object, Di Bernardo teaches
the limitation “the displayed panoramic image also rotatable and zoomable.”
Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Action claims Di Bernardo teaches an
image is rotatable” but “the asserted teachings only provide for alternating
between separate flat images of opposite sides of the street – that is, for
switching views, not for rotating a panoramic image about an axis.” (App.
Br. 11 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 9.) However, Patent Owner’s
argument are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim
does not recite “rotating a panoramic image about an axis.” Moreover, the
limitation “rotatable” is broad enough to encompass “Switch View” button
230 of Di Bernardo, which allows the user a view of one side of the street
with a composite image of the other side of the street.
Patent Owner also argues that “‘Switch View’ button 230 . . . allows
the user to update the current composite image providing a view of one side
of the street with a composite image of the other side of the street” while
“[t]he method does not merely switch between separate images, but provides
a single image, such as a cylindrical or spherical image, which the user can
rotate or pan” in view of the ’958 patent, which discloses the following:
The panoramic image 14 is a 360 degree image which can be
panned, or “rotated,” by the user such that the user sees an image
looking out from the point of the panoramic image. (It is not
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

16
intended that potential infringement could be avoided by
allowing somewhat less than full rotation.) . . . For example, in
FIG. 3, the image from FIG. 2 has been panned to face another
direction. Similarly, the image can preferably be zoomed in and
out. . . . Further, the image may be tilted . . . up and down. It is
possible to use panoramic imaging technology to supply a
spherical viewing of an image, that is, having a “top” and
“bottom” as well as the cylindrical side.
(App. Br. 11 (quoting col. 5, ll. 8–21).) However, the importation of a
narrow embodiment (e.g., image rotation and panning) into the broader
independent claim 1 is improper. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters.,
Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“For example, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”)
Patent Owner further argues that “Di Bernardo flat out states that use
of a panoramic image – such as in Jongerius and Applicant’s claims –
simply would not work: ‘the nature of the acquired imagery . . . limits [its]
usefulness . . . since [a] single image . . . contains a narrow field of view . . .
due to the limited viewing angle of the video camera.’” (App. Br. 11–12
(emphasis omitted) (quoting col. 1, ll. 45–49).) Again, Patent Owner cites
the “Background of the Invention” section of Di Bernardo, which describes
deficiencies with the prior art. As a solution to “the abovementioned
deficiencies associated with the prior art,” Di Bernardo explains that “[t]he
present invention is directed to a computer implemented system and method
for synthesizing images of a geographic location to generate composite
images of the location.” (Col. 2, ll. 13–18.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would have rendered obvious independent
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

17
claim 1, which includes the limitation “the displayed panoramic image also
rotatable and zoomable.”
Last, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 12;
see also Reply Br. 9) that the combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius, and
Jackson would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “the displayed map image is navigable in response to
a second user input activating any of a plurality of hot spots or links
embedded and positioned in the displayed map image.”
The Examiner found that Figure 18 of Di Bernardo, which illustrates a
process of finding geographic location information based on a location
selected from map area 226, corresponds to the limitation “the displayed
map image is navigable in response to a second user input activating any of
a plurality of hot spots or links embedded and positioned in the displayed
map image.” (Final Act. 16–17.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Figure 18 of Di Bernardo illustrates a “flow diagram of the process for
obtaining image and location information of a location selected from a
map.” (Col. 3, ll. 33–35.) In particular, Di Bernardo explains a process for
“obtaining image and location information of a particular location selected
on the map displayed in the map area 226” (col. 14, ll. 28–30), such that “in
step 260, the user requests information about a particular street address by
selecting a location on the map,” “[i]n step 262, the map coordinates are
converted from screen coordinates to geographic location coordinates (x,y)
and transmitted to the host computer,” “[i]n step 244, a query is run on the
host computer to locate the street segment index in the street segment table
170 . . . corresponding to the geographic location coordinates” (col. 14, ll.
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

18
33–42), and “[i]n step 270, the user terminal downloads the composite image
corresponding to the geographic coordinates of the input location” (col. 15,
ll. 3–5). Because the user of Di Bernardo can select a new location on map
area 226, such that the host computer can determine geographic location
coordinates and the corresponding composite image is updated, Di Bernardo
teaches the limitation “the displayed map image is navigable in response to a
second user input activating any of a plurality of hot spots or links embedded
and positioned in the displayed map image.”
Patent Owner argues that “[the Final Action] incorrectly makes the
unsupported leap that the map image is navigable by activating a hot spot or
link embedded and positioned in the map image.” (App. Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 9.) However, as discussed previously, because the user can select
a new location on map area 226 of Di Bernardo, such that the host computer
can determine geographic location coordinates and the corresponding
composite image is also downloaded, Di Bernardo teaches the limitation
“the displayed map image is navigable in response to a second user input
activating any of a plurality of hot spots or links embedded and positioned in
the displayed map image.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “the displayed map image is navigable
in response to a second user input activating any of a plurality of hot spots or
links embedded and positioned in the displayed map image.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 4, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, 32, and 33 depend from
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

19
claim 1, and Patent Owner has not presented any additional substantive
arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 4, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.

Claim 7
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 7 separately (App. Br. 12–13), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim
is separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner reiterates the arguments that
“[a]s stated before, the icons 234 are not composite images; not part of a
composite image; and not positioned in a composite image” and “[t]he
information icons 234 provide information (e.g., name, address) about an
object such as a business, and may provide a link to the business’ website,
preferably on a separate browser window.” (Id. (emphases omitted).) We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.

Claim 8
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 8 separately (App. Br. 13), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner reiterates the arguments that
“[a]gain, the information icons 234 are not the panoramic image, a part
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

20
thereof, or in the panoramic image” and “[t]he icons do not allow a user to
navigate a panoramic image (or map image).” (Id.) We are not persuaded
by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from
which claim 8 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

Claim 9
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 9 separately (App. Br. 13), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner merely provides conclusory
statements that “[t]he Final Action cites to the information icons 234, which
correspond to geographic locations in the composite image, but do not
provide for navigation of any image, and do not comprise a panoramic
image or map image, or a part thereof” and “[c]licking the information icons
does not change the composite image, much less ‘walk you down the street’
seen in the composite image.” (Id.) Accordingly, without additional
explanation, we are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 9 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

Claim 12
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 13) that
the combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would not have
rendered obvious dependent claim 12, which includes the limitation
“wherein the plurality of panoramic images are spherical or curved images.”
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

21
The Examiner found that Figure 1 of Jongerius, which illustrates a
360° panoramic image, corresponds to the limitation “wherein the plurality
of panoramic images are spherical or curved images.” (Final Act. 19; see
also Ans. 17.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Figure 1 of Jongerius illustrates a photo of a
full (360°) panoramic image of a shopping area on a computer display.
(Col. 2, ll. 64–65.) Jongerius further explains that such panoramic image
“was taken with multiple successively rotated exposures using a digital
camera to take a series of pictures and splicing the pictures together to form
the 360° image.” (Col. 3, l. 64 to col. 4, l. 2.) Because Jongerius explains
that a rotated digital camera is used to generate the 360° panoramic image,
Jongerius teaches the limitation “wherein the plurality of panoramic images
are spherical or curved images.”
Patent Owner argues that “Di Bernardo relies exclusively on flat
images and specifically eschews the use of non-flat images” and “[i]t cannot
then be combined with a teaching to use a spherical or curved image.”
(App. Br. 13.) However, other than providing a conclusory statement that
Di Bernardo “specifically eschews the use of non-flat images,” Patent
Owner has not provided any additional evidence to support this position.
Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective
evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson, would have rendered obvious dependent
claim 12, which includes the limitation “wherein the plurality of panoramic
images are spherical or curved images.
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

22
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claim 14
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 13–14)
that the combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would not have
rendered obvious dependent claim 14, which includes the limitation
“wherein the plurality of panoramic images includes a plurality of
overlapping panoramic images providing continuous coverage of at least one
geographical location.”
The Examiner found that Figure 2 of Di Bernardo, which illustrates
composite image 40 created from the image frames 42 acquired by
camera 10, corresponds to the limitation “wherein the plurality of panoramic
images includes a plurality of overlapping panoramic images providing
continuous coverage of at least one geographical location.” (Final Act. 19.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Di Bernardo explains that “[t]he composite image [40] is preferably
created on a column-by-column basis by extracting the corresponding
optical column from each image frame.” (Col. 6, ll. 4–7.) Figure 2 of Di
Bernardo illustrates “a composite image 40 created from the image frames
42 acquired by the camera 10 while moving along an x-axis 58 direction”
(col. 5, ll. 53–55), including selected image frame 42 (col. 6, ll. 1–2) and
image frame 42a (col. 6, ll. 7–9). Figure 2 of Di Bernardo further illustrates
that image frame 42 and image frame 42a overlap to form composite
image 40. Because Figure 2 of Di Bernardo illustrates that image frame 42
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

23
and image frame 42a overlap to form composite image 40, Di Bernardo
teaches the limitation “wherein the plurality of panoramic images includes a
plurality of overlapping panoramic images providing continuous coverage of
at least one geographical location.”
Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Final Action cites to a section of Di
Bernardo dealing with preprocessing and processing of taken images to
create the composite images which are eventually used by the end user”
(App. Br. 13) and “the description of the segment tables . . . , segment blocks
. . . , etc., seem to indicate no overlap is anticipated” (id. at 14). However,
the Examiner also cited to Figure 2 of Di Bernardo and Patent Owner has
not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Di Bernardo are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson, would have rendered obvious dependent
claim 14, which includes the limitation “wherein the plurality of panoramic
images includes a plurality of overlapping panoramic images providing
continuous coverage of at least one geographical location.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claim 17
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 17 separately (App. Br. 14), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner provides a conclusory
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

24
statement that “[a]s explained above herein, Di Bernardo explicitly states
that it does not use panoramic images or images as taken by a camera” and
“the composite images do not represent the image as taken at the location,
but rather a created image as if taken by a camera at a location ‘behind’ the
actual camera.” (Id.) Accordingly, without additional explanation, Patent
Owner has not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to this
claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1, from which claim 17 depends. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.

Claim 26
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 14) that
the combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would not have
rendered obvious dependent claim 26, which includes the limitation
“displaying hot spots or links on the displayed map image only upon scroll-
over by a user.”
The Examiner found that information icons 234 of Di Bernardo
correspond to the limitation “displaying hot spots or links . . . only upon
scroll-over by a user.” (See Ans. 12.) The Examiner further found that the
“hot spots” of Jackson, which can be placed in an image, corresponds to the
limitation “hot spots or links on the displayed map image.” (See Final Act.
15–16; see also Ans. 12.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Jackson explain that one “object of the
invention is to allow the placement of active areas (‘hot spots’) on the
images that allow the sequencing of images or other information (text, video,
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

25
audio, other spherical images, etc . . .) when activated by selection with the
mouse, joystick, or keyboard.” (Col. 4, ll. 3–7.) Because Jackson explains
that “hot spots” are placed in images that summons additional information
when activated by selection, Jackson teaches the limitation “hot spots or
links on the displayed map image.”
Di Bernardo further explains that “the information displayed upon
actuating the information icons 234 may include the name, address, and
phone number 236 of the establishment” and “[t]his information is
preferably displayed each time the user terminal’s cursor or pointing device
is passed above the icon.” (Col. 12, ll. 59–64.) Because Di Bernardo
explains that name, address, and phone number can be displayed each time
the user’s cursor passes over information icons 234, Di Bernardo teaches the
limitation “displaying hot spots or links . . . only upon scroll-over by a user.”
Also discussed previously, the combination of Di Bernardo,
Jongerius, and Jackson is based on the improvement of a similar device in
the same way as in the prior art. Accordingly, the combination of Di
Bernardo and Jackson teaches the limitation “displaying hot spots or links on
the displayed map image only upon scroll-over by a user.”
Patent Owner argues “[t]he Final Action . . . misstates that the
location ‘icon (228)’ qualifies as a hot spot” and “[n]or do the information
icons 234 . . . appear only upon scroll-over by the user.” (App. Br. 14.)
However, as discussed previously, the Examiner also cited to information
icons 234 of Di Bernardo, which displays name, address, and phone number
each time the user’s cursor passes over such information icons 234, for
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

26
teaching the limitation “displaying hot spots or links . . . only upon scroll-
over by a user.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, and Jackson would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “displaying hot spots or links on the
displayed map image only upon scroll-over by a user.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claim 27
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 27 separately (App. Br. 14), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner provides a conclusory
statement that “upon scroll-over or actuation of a hot spot, say at a business
on the panoramic image, data about the business would appear in two
locations, say on the map image and text fields” but “Di Bernardo does not
teach such a method.” (Id.) Accordingly, without additional explanation,
Patent Owner has not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to
this claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 27 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

27
Claim 29
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 29 separately (App. Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner provides a conclusory
statements that “information displayed at and upon activation of an
information icon 234 . . . is not what is referenced in the claim,” but instead
“[t]he claim requires displaying information on the map image, the
information about the geographical location upon which the displayed map
image is centered.” (Id.) Accordingly, without additional explanation,
Patent Owner have not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to
this claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 27 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

Claim 30
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 30 separately (App. Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner provides a conclusory
statements that “[t]he Final Action . . . refers to information displayed at and
upon activation of an information icon 234” but “[t]he claim requires
information to appear on the map image and to appear either all the time,
upon scroll-over or when indicated by a user.” (Id.) Accordingly, without
additional explanation, Patent Owner has not presented any persuasive
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

28
arguments with respect to this claim. We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which
claim 30 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

Claim 44
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 44 separately (App. Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner provides a conclusory
statements that “Di Bernardo provides no search features or functionality [of
updating the panoramic image and map image in response to a user search
input].” (Id.) Accordingly, without additional explanation, Patent Owner
has not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to these claims.
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1, from which claim 44 depends. Accordingly, we sustain
this rejection.

Claim 48
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 48 separately (App. Br. 15), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner provides a conclusory
statements that “Di Bernardo has no search field capabilities [of displaying
at least one search input field for user textual input].” (Id.) Accordingly,
without additional explanation, Patent Owner has not presented any
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

29
persuasive arguments with respect to this claim. We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from
which claim 48 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

§ 103 Rejection—Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Lipscomb
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 10 separately (App. Br. 16), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claims are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner merely argues that “[c]laim 10
is allowable as depending from an allowable base claim for the reasons
elaborated above.” (Id.) Patent Owner also provides a conclusory statement
that “the Action is now stacking together four references, picking and
choosing only selected teachings from each, ignoring non-selected teachings
from each, by impermissibly using hindsight, to reach a non-obvious
‘combined teaching.’” (Id.) Accordingly, without additional explanation,
Patent Owner has not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to
this claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 10 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

§ 103 Rejection—Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Admitted Prior Art
Although Patent Owner nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 24 separately (App. Br. 16), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Patent Owner merely argues that “[c]laim 24
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

30
is allowable as depending from an allowable base claim for the reasons
elaborated above.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 24 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

§ 103 Rejection—Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Foote
We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 16) that
the combination of Di Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Foote would not
have rendered obvious dependent claims 45 and 47, which includes the
limitations “displaying a list of multiple locations in response to a user
search input activating a search, wherein the user search input comprises one
or more topical keywords” and “displaying the list of multiple locations
organized by distance from a particular location on the displayed map image
or where the listed multiple locations correspond to geographical locations
displayed on the displayed map image,” respectively.
The Examiner found that Figure 2 of Foote, which illustrates user
interface 30 having hypertext links 87, corresponds to the limitations
“displaying a list of multiple locations in response to a user search input
activating a search, wherein the user search input comprises one or more
topical keywords” and “displaying the list of multiple locations organized by
distance from a particular location on the displayed map image or where the
listed multiple locations correspond to geographical locations displayed on
the displayed map image.” (Final Act. 23–24; see also Ans. 23.) We agree
with the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

31
Foote relates to “generating a video in response to an action requested
by a user to perform virtual movement along a virtual path in a virtual
environment.” (Col. 1, ll. 16–18.) Figure 2 of Foote illustrates user
interface 30, which includes image display 60, map display 70, text
display 80. (Col. 4, ll. 34–39). Figure 2 of Foote further illustrates that text
display 80 includes search box 63 and hypertext links 87 having multiple
listings for “Points of Interest” (e.g., Fannett Island, Cascade Lake, and
Fallen Leaf Lake) and “Nearby Lodging” (e.g., Tamarack Lodge, and High
Sierra Inn). Foote explains that “[a] user can move from one location to
another by entering a particular search query into the search box 63 to locate
a final destination search box 63.” (Col. 11, ll. 25–27.) Because Figure 2 of
Foote includes search box 63 for entering queries that results in hypertext
links 87 having multiple listings for “Points of Interest” and “Nearby
Lodging,” Foote teaches the limitation “displaying a list of multiple
locations in response to a user search input activating a search, wherein the
user search input comprises one or more topical keywords,” as recited in
dependent claim 45. Moreover, because Figure 2 of Foote includes
hypertext links 87 having multiple listings for “Nearby Lodging,” Foote
teaches the limitation “displaying the list of multiple locations organized by
distance from a particular location on the displayed map image or where the
listed multiple locations correspond to geographical locations displayed on
the displayed map image,” as recited in dependent claim 47.
Patent Owner argues that “[the Examiner] ignores the claim[]
language at claim[] 45. . . requiring ‘multiple locations’ on the list.” (App.
Br. 16.) Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the Examiner found that
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

32
hypertext links 87 of Foote, having multiple listings for “Points of Interest”
(e.g., Fannett Island, Cascade Lake, and Fallen Leaf Lake) and “Nearby
Lodging” (e.g., Tamarack Lodge and High Sierra Inn) correspond to the
limitation “a list of multiple locations,” as recited in claim 45. (Ans. 23.)
Patent Owner further argues that “the Action nowhere provides any
citation in any reference to the use of a search feature based on topical
keywords (as opposed to merely an address field).” (App. Br. 16.)
However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with
claim 45, because the limitation “topical keywords” does not exclude the
user of an address. Even if Patent Owner is correct that “topical keywords”
excludes addresses, Figure 2 of Foote include search box 63, which permits
the user to enter search queries.
Patent Owner also argues that “the Action fails to provide a citation
for organization of the multiple locations on the list by distance from a
particular location on the map image.” (App. Br. 16.) Contrary to Patent
Owner’s arguments, the Examiner found that hypertext links 87 of Foote,
having multiple listings for “Nearby Lodging” (e.g., Tamarack Lodge, and
High Sierra Inn) corresponds to the limitation “displaying the list of multiple
locations organized by distance from a particular location,” as recited in
claim 47. (Ans. 23.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Di
Bernardo, Jongerius, Jackson, and Foote would have rendered obvious
dependent claims 45 and 47, which includes the limitations “displaying a list
of multiple locations in response to a user search input activating a search,
wherein the user search input comprises one or more topical keywords” and
Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

33
“displaying the list of multiple locations organized by distance from a
particular location on the displayed map image or where the listed multiple
locations correspond to geographical locations displayed on the displayed
map image,” respectively.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 45 and 47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 46 and 49 recite limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to claims 45 and 47. We sustain the rejection of claims 46 and 49 for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 45 and 47.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) and (b) is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 7–10, 12–18, 23, 24,
26–30, 32, 33, and 44–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2017-008944
Reexamination Control 96/030,013
Patent 7,236,563 B2

34
PATENT OWNER:

BOOTH ALBANESI SCHROEDER PLLC
10000 North Central Expressway
Suite 400
DALLAS, TX 75231