Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01979/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01979-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Google Inc.
Cross-Appellant
Google LLC
Cross-Appellant
Vederi, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Angeles, 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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 1 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 construction disputes and various factual issues regarding the 

scope and content of the prior art. Google LLC cross-appeals, 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 moving 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 constructions.

BACKGROUND

I

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

patent specification and address the need to efficiently create a visual database of a geographic area. More particularly, these patents disclose using a moving image 

recording device and a GPS and/or inertial navigation system to provide a computer with image data with an associated 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 individual image frames acquired by a video camera moving 

Case: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 2 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 location 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 created uniformly along a street segment, along with an associated 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 include the three disputed claim terms at issue in this appeal:

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 objects 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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 3 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 associated with the first location, the first image being 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 direction identifier for indicating the viewing direction depicted in the first image;

receiving by the computer system a second user input specifying a navigation direction relative to the 

first location in the geographic area;

determining by the computer system a second location based on the user specified navigation direction;

retrieving by the computer system a second image 

associated with the second location, the second image 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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 4 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 acquired 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 recording 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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 5 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 patent.

DISCUSSION

I

On appeal, Vederi and Google challenge the Board’s 

construction of the three disputed claim terms: (1) “composite 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 establishment.” Claim construction based on the intrinsic evidence 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 image “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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 6 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 patent). ’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 specifies that, alternatively, the image may be achieved by combining 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 composite image.” Id. at col. 5 l. 66 – col. 6 l. 1. Citing the specification, Vederi seeks a 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.” Appellant’s Br. 44. 

According to Vederi, the specification requires this construction because it states that the composite image “preferably ‘provides a field of view of the location that is wider 

than the field of view provided by any single image acquired 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 particular 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 Websystems, Inc., 338 F.3d 1360, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, because the specification discusses a “composite 

image” in a broader sense than the preferred embodiment 

Case: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 7 Filed: 05/14/2020
8 VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

selectively identified by Vederi, the Board’s broader interpretation is reasonable in light of the specification. 

B

We do not fully adopt the Board’s construction of “moving” 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 recording 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 understand the Board to read the claims to cover (1) image recording devices that acquire images while moving; (2) 

image recording devices that acquire images both while 

moving and while stationary; and (3) image recording devices 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 device 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 specification. 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 image recording device as a “video camera” that “mov[es]

Case: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 8 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 concurrent. 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 resolution in the resulting images.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 55–58. Disclosing 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 example, 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 conclude that the Board’s inclusion of such an embodiment in 

its claim construction is not reasonable in light of the specification. Accordingly, we construe the claims to require an 

image recording device that acquires images while moving 

or acquires images both while moving and while stationary.

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 belonging to, owned by, or operated by the retail establishment. 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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 9 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. Describing 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 retail establishment in that it shows particular information 

about the retail establishment for the convenience of a consumer. 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 displaying 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 control. 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 controlled 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: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 10 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 reasons, we vacate the Board’s findings of invalidity of the 

challenged claims and remand to the Board for consideration under the proper constructions.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1979 Document: 7 Page: 11 Filed: 05/14/2020