Vederi, LLC v. Google LLC

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 1 Filed: 05/14/2020

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

VEDERI, LLC,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Cross-Appellant

______________________

2016-1919, 2016-1979, 2017-1479, 2019-1211, 2019-1573

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 95/000,681,

95/000,682, 95/000,683, 95/000,684.

______________________

Decided: May 14, 2020

______________________

DAVID A. DILLARD, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie

LLP, Glendale, CA, for appellant. Also represented by

ROBERT GREEN, SHAUN PHILIP LEE.

BRIAN BERLINER, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Ange-

les, CA, for cross-appellant. Also represented by DAVID

ALMELING, MARK LIANG, San Francisco, CA; BRADLEY

GARCIA, Washington, DC; JOSHUA NATHANIEL MITCHELL,

King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC.

______________________

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 2 Filed: 05/14/2020

2 VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

This is a consolidated appeal from the final decisions of

the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in four inter partes

reexaminations of related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,805,025,

7,239,760, 7,577,316, and 7,813,596, owned by Vederi,

LLC. Vederi asks this court to consider two claim construc-

tion disputes and various factual issues regarding the

scope and content of the prior art. Google LLC cross-ap-

peals, asking this court to consider an additional issue of

claim construction. We adopt the Board’s construction of

the disputed claim term “composite image.” We do not

adopt the Board’s construction of “moving” in the limitation

“image frames acquired by an image recording device mov-

ing along a trajectory,” or its construction of “web page for

the retail establishment.” Because the “moving” limitation

is found in each claim at issue on appeal, we vacate the

Board’s decisions and remand for the Board to analyze the

validity of all challenged claims under the proper construc-

tions.

BACKGROUND

I

The ’025, ’760, ’316, and ’596 patents share the same

patent specification and address the need to efficiently cre-

ate a visual database of a geographic area. More particu-

larly, these patents disclose using a moving image

recording device and a GPS and/or inertial navigation sys-

tem to provide a computer with image data with an associ-

ated location, wherein the computer synthesizes that

associated image data to create a composite image. The

patent specification states that the composite image of a

geographic location may be “created by synthesizing indi-

vidual image frames acquired by a video camera moving

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 3 Filed: 05/14/2020

VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3

through the location.” ’025 patent col. 3 ll. 46–48. 1 The

video camera “record[s] a series of video images of the loca-

tion while moving along a path,” wherein the camera may

be mounted to “a base, platform, or motor vehicle moving

at an average speed of preferably about 20 miles/hour to

ensure a sufficient resolution in the resulting images.” Id.

at col. 4 ll. 52–58.

In certain embodiments, the composite images are cre-

ated uniformly along a street segment, along with an asso-

ciated index that identifies the street segments and other

characteristics of the captured image. Objects within those

composite images may be further identified, and if those

objects are business establishments, information about the

establishment—such as its name, address, phone number,

or a web page—may be displayed to a user.

Independent claim 21 and dependent claims 28, 34,

and 35 of the ’025 patent are illustrative claims that in-

clude the three disputed claim terms at issue in this ap-

peal:

21. A method for enabling visual navigation of a

geographic area via a computer system coupled to

an image source, the computer system including

one or more computer devices, at least one of the

computer devices having a display screen, the

method comprising:

providing by the image source a plurality of images

depicting views of objects in the geographic area,

the views being substantially elevations of the ob-

jects in the geographic area, wherein the images are

1 Because the ’025, ’760, ’316, and ’596 patents share

the same specification, all citations to the specification are

to the ’025 patent.

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 4 Filed: 05/14/2020

4 VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

associated with image frames acquired by an image

recording device moving along a trajectory;

receiving by the computer system a first user input

specifying a first location in the geographic area;

retrieving by the computer system a first image as-

sociated with the first location, the first image be-

ing one of the plurality of images provided by the

image source;

providing by the computer system the retrieved

first image for displaying on a first display area of

the display screen;

invoking by the computer system a display of a di-

rection identifier for indicating the viewing direc-

tion depicted in the first image;

receiving by the computer system a second user in-

put specifying a navigation direction relative to the

first location in the geographic area;

determining by the computer system a second loca-

tion based on the user specified navigation direc-

tion;

retrieving by the computer system a second image

associated with the second location, the second im-

age being one of the plurality of images provided by

the image source; and

providing by the computer system the retrieved

second image for updating the first image with the

second image.

...

28. The method of claim 27, wherein the particular

one of the objects is a retail establishment, the

method further comprising:

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 5 Filed: 05/14/2020

VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 5

accessing a web page for the retail establishment;

and

invoking by the computer system a display of the

web page on the display screen.

...

34. The method of claim 21, wherein the first and

second images are each a composite image, wherein

each composite image is created based on a first one

of the image frames acquired at a first point in the

trajectory and a second one of the image frames ac-

quired at a second point in the trajectory.

35. The method of claim 21, wherein the first and

second images are each a composite image, wherein

each composite image is created by processing pixel

data of a plurality of the image frames.

Id. at col. 17 l. 43 – col. 18 l. 9, col. 18 ll. 43–48, col. 19

ll. 6–14 (emphases added).

II

The Board proceedings on appeal involved two panels,

one for Reexamination Nos. 95/000,681 and 95/000,682,

and another for Reexamination Nos. 95/000,683 and

95/000,684. In holding the claims of the ’025, ’760, ’316,

and ’596 patents invalid, the panels consistently construed

the claim terms “composite image” and “moving” in the

claim limitation “image frames acquired by an image re-

cording device moving along a trajectory.” Only one panel

construed a “web page for the retail establishment.” All

challenged claims include the claim term “moving,” while

select claims include the “composite image” and “web page

for a retail establishment” claim terms.

Following claim construction, the Board found that

prior art anticipated claim 8 of the ’760 patent, as well as

claims 4, 63–66, 68, 70–72, and 74 of the ’596 patent. It

also held that claims 2–6, 8–10, 14–18, 20, 33–36, 56–60,

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 6 Filed: 05/14/2020

6 VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

64–68, and 70–72 of the ’025 patent, claims 2, 3, 8, 12–18,

21–26, 29, 32–37, 39–44, and 46–51 of the ’760 patent,

claims 13, 18–24, 36, 37, and 39–43 of the ’316 patent, and

claims 4, 21, 63–66, 68, 70–72, and 74–76 of the ’596 patent

would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The

Board declined to hold invalid claims 24, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38,

41, 42, 44–48, 51–54, 63, 75–84, and 86–88 of the ’025 pa-

tent.

DISCUSSION

I

On appeal, Vederi and Google challenge the Board’s

construction of the three disputed claim terms: (1) “compo-

site image”; (2) “moving” in the claim limitation “image

frames acquired by an image recording device moving

along a trajectory”; and (3) “web page for the retail estab-

lishment.” Claim construction based on the intrinsic evi-

dence is ultimately a question of law that this court reviews

de novo. Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,

811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The construction of

claim terms based on the claim language, the specification,

and the prosecution history are legal determinations.”).

Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,

a claim construction “must be reasonable in light of the

specification, prosecution history, and the understanding

of one skilled in the art.” Personalized Media Commc’ns,

LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

A

We agree with the Board’s construction of “composite

image.” The Board construed this term as “a single image

created by combining different image data or by uniting

image data.” Google Inc. v. Vederi, LLC, No. 95/000,682,

2016 WL 5405204, at *8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2016).

The claim language describes creating a composite im-

age “based on a first one of the image frames acquired at a

first point in the trajectory and a second one of the image

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 7 Filed: 05/14/2020

VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 7

frames acquired at a second point in the trajectory” (see

claim 34 of the ’025 patent) or “by processing pixel data of

a plurality of the image frames” (see claim 35 of the ’025 pa-

tent). ’025 patent col. 19 ll. 6–14. The Board’s construction

is consistent with both requirements in the recited claim

language. It first requires combining different image data,

as in image data from different image frames. It also spec-

ifies that, alternatively, the image may be achieved by com-

bining or uniting image data, meaning at the level of pixel

data.

The specification supports the Board’s construction,

disclosing that “[i]mage data from each selected image

frame 42 is then extracted and combined to form the com-

posite image.” Id. at col. 5 l. 66 – col. 6 l. 1. Citing the spec-

ification, Vederi seeks a narrowing construction that would

limit “composite image” to “a new image, created by pro-

cessing pixel data of a plurality of image frames, that de-

picts 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.” Appellant’s Br. 44.

According to Vederi, the specification requires this con-

struction because it states that the composite image “pref-

erably ‘provides a field of view of the location that is wider

than the field of view provided by any single image ac-

quired by the image recording device.’” Id. at 38 (quoting

’025 patent col. 2 ll. 36–39). We are not persuaded by

Vederi’s argument. While the embodiments cited by Vederi

may inform the meaning of a disputed claim term, “a par-

ticular embodiment appearing in the written description

may not be read into a claim when the claim language is

broader than the embodiment.” Personalized Media,

952 F.3d at 1343 (citing Resonate Inc. v. Alteon Websys-

tems, Inc., 338 F.3d 1360, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). More-

over, because the specification discusses a “composite

image” in a broader sense than the preferred embodiment

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 8 Filed: 05/14/2020

8 VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

selectively identified by Vederi, the Board’s broader inter-

pretation is reasonable in light of the specification.

B

We do not fully adopt the Board’s construction of “mov-

ing” in the claim limitation “image frames acquired by an

image recording device moving along a trajectory.” The

Board construed this limitation to require that the image

recording device “move along a trajectory and image

frames are acquired along the trajectory but that the image

frames do not have to be acquired while the image record-

ing device is moving along the trajectory.” Google Inc.

v. Vederi, LLC, No. 95/000,684, 2016 WL 4376717, at *9

(P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016) (emphasis in original). We under-

stand the Board to read the claims to cover (1) image re-

cording devices that acquire images while moving; (2)

image recording devices that acquire images both while

moving and while stationary; and (3) image recording de-

vices that acquire images only while stationary (although

the image recording device moves along a trajectory at

other times). We do not agree that the claims cover the

third option. In our view, reading the claims to cover the

third option is unreasonably broad in light of the shared

patent specification. Instead, in light of the specification,

we construe the claims to require an image recording de-

vice that acquires images while moving or acquires images

both while moving and while stationary.

The broadest reasonable interpretation requires that

the claim construction be reasonable in light of the specifi-

cation. Personalized Media, 952 F.3d at 1340. Here, the

specification repeatedly contemplates acquisition of image

frames by an image recording device that is in motion. For

instance, it describes an image recording device that

“moves along a path recording images of objects along the

path.” ’025 patent col. 2 ll. 27–29; see also, e.g., id. at col. 5

ll. 18–19, 52–54, col. 6 ll. 58–61. It also describes that im-

age recording device as a “video camera” that “mov[es]

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 9 Filed: 05/14/2020

VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 9

through the location and film[s] the objects in its view,”

wherein the acts of moving and filming seem to be concur-

rent. Id. at col. 3 ll. 47–49; see also, e.g., id. at col. 3 ll. 54–

57, col. 4 ll. 50–53. Moreover, the specification explains

that “[m]ovement to the camera 10 is provided by a base,

platform, or motor vehicle moving at an average speed of

preferably about 20 miles/hour to ensure a sufficient reso-

lution in the resulting images.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 55–58. Dis-

closing a particular speed to achieve a sufficient image

resolution makes clear that the specification contemplates

the image recording device moving while capturing images.

At the same time, the specification contemplates that some

photos may be taken while the vehicle is stopped, for exam-

ple, at an intersection. See id. Fig. 9.

On the other hand, the specification does not disclose a

single embodiment in which the image recording device

only captures images when it is not moving. Given that the

specification does not contemplate an embodiment in which

all image frames are acquired when the recording device is

stationary during its movement along a trajectory, we con-

clude that the Board’s inclusion of such an embodiment in

its claim construction is not reasonable in light of the spec-

ification. Accordingly, we construe the claims to require an

image recording device that acquires images while moving

or acquires images both while moving and while station-

ary.

C

Finally, representative claim 28 recites “accessing a

web page for the retail establishment; and invoking by the

computer system a display of the web page on the display

screen.” ’025 patent col. 18 ll. 46–48. The Board limited a

“web page for the retail establishment” to web pages be-

longing to, owned by, or operated by the retail establish-

ment. Google Inc. v. Vederi, LLC, No. 95/000,681, 2016 WL

792285, at *2–3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016). After considering

the intrinsic evidence considered by the Board, we conclude

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 10 Filed: 05/14/2020

10 VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

that the Board’s construction of a “web page for the retail

establishment” is unduly narrow.

Representative claim 28 recites “accessing a web page

for the retail establishment.” ’025 patent col. 18 l. 46. De-

scribing the web page as being for a retail establishment

does not limit it to one that is owned or operated by the

retail establishment. Indeed, as Google points out, an

online Yellow Pages directory may be a web page for a re-

tail establishment in that it shows particular information

about the retail establishment for the convenience of a con-

sumer. Cross-Appellant’s Br. 80. Yet, the Yellow Pages

directory does not require the retail establishment to own

or control the web page associated with the establishment.

The specification does nothing to limit this broad claim

language. Rather, the specification describes the term

“web page” only once, wherein it places a condition on dis-

playing a hyperlink “if the establishment is associated with

a particular Web page.” ’025 patent col. 12 ll. 53–56. The

term associated does not connote ownership or direct con-

trol. We conclude that, in the context of the claims and

specification at issue on appeal, a web page, such as an

online Yellow Pages directory, may be associated with a

particular retail establishment, but not owned or con-

trolled by that establishment.

II

Vederi asks this court to determine whether certain

prior art anticipates or renders obvious certain claims

based on the proper construction of “moving,” and Google

asks this court to determine whether the prior art renders

obvious certain claims based on the proper construction of

“web page for the retail establishment.” We decline the

parties’ invitations, and remand to the Board to decide

these validity issues in the first instance.

In addition to the claim construction issues above, we

have also considered Vederi’s arguments that certain prior

Case: 16-1919 Document: 101 Page: 11 Filed: 05/14/2020

VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 11

art does not disclose “street segments” as required by some

of the claims. Appellant’s Br. 58–62. This argument is at

issue regardless of the construction of this term. We are

not persuaded by Vederi’s arguments and conclude that

substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the

prior art discloses the disputed claim limitations.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments,

but we do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing rea-

sons, we vacate the Board’s findings of invalidity of the

challenged claims and remand to the Board for considera-

tion under the proper constructions.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.