NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICROGRAFX, LLC,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., 

LTD.,

Appellees

______________________ 

2015-2091, 2015-2092

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2014-00533, IPR2014-00534.

______________________ 

Decided: November 29, 2016

______________________ 

DOUGLAS R. WILSON, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, 

Houston, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

ROBERT ALLAN BULLWINKEL, MICHAEL F. HEIM. 

DAVID S. ALMELING, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, argued for appellees. Also represented by 

MARK LIANG, DARIN W. SNYDER; MISHIMA ALAM, Washington, DC; SUSAN ROEDER, Menlo Park, CA; MICHAEL 
2 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

TIMOTHY HAWKINS, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, 

MN. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

Micrografx, LLC (“Micrografx”) appeals decisions of 

the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). The Board

held that claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 19, 44, 54–57, 59, 

61–66, 68, 69, and 71 of U.S. Patent No. 6,057,854 (“’854 

patent”) and claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,552,732 B1 (“’732 patent”) (collectively “the challenged claims of the ’854 and ’732 patents”) were anticipated by Mark Pesce, VRML: Browsing & Building 

Cyberspace (1995) (“Pesce”). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Micrografx owns the ’854 and ’732 patents. Both patents claim priority to the same provisional application 

and they have materially identical specifications. The 

invention is a method for creating interactive graphics for 

delivery over the Internet. According to the specifications, the graphic files in the prior art were large, took a 

long time to download over the Internet, and relied on bit 

mapping, which defines each pixel of an image individually. In addition, the interactive area of a graphic that 

responds to actions by a user, known as “hot spots,” were 

inflexible and restricted to rectangular shapes. The 

invention sought to overcome these disadvantages by

defining graphical images mathematically using “vector 

objects containing mathematical descriptions of lines, 

curves, fills, and patterns.” ’854 patent, col. 2 ll. 13–14. 

According to the specifications, the invention’s vector 

object files were smaller, loaded faster, could be scaled to 

different sizes without degradation, and provided greater 

flexibility for defining the active areas or “hot spots” 
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 3

associated with images. Claim 1 of the ’854 patent is 

representative. 

 An interactive vector object stored on a computer readable medium and operable to be downloaded over a network, the vector object comprising:

data operable to be downloaded to a client 

system connectable to the network and in 

connection with a vector graphics network 

file to render an image of the vector object 

on the client system;

an active area defined by the vector object; 

and

a property defining a command to be performed in response to an event within the 

active area of the vector object.

’854 patent, col. 12 ll. 22–32.

On August 20, 2013, the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued a certificate of correction, correcting the language of claims 1, 10, 23, 33, 44, 

55, and 64 of the ’854 patent. Specifically, as indicated in 

italics below, this correction changed the language of the 

last two limitations to read:

an active area predefined by the vector object, the active area associated with a 

command to be performed in response to 

an event therein; and

a property defining the command to be 

performed in response to the event within 

the active area of the vector object.

J.A. 76. The certificate itself does not mention a reason 

for the correction. At oral argument, Micrografx explained that the prior omission of these limitations was 

inadvertent.
4 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

On March 24, 2014, Google Inc., Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., (collectively “Google”), filed petitions for inter partes review of 

the ’854 and ’732 patents. Google asserted that the challenged claims of the ’854 and ’732 patents were anticipated by Pesce.

Pesce is a manual that describes the use of VRML 

(Virtual Reality Modeling Language). VRML is a computer language that can be used to create interactive, 

three-dimensional graphics for delivery over the Internet. 

In VRML, graphical images can be defined mathematically. Using VRML requires creating a VRML document. A 

VRML document contains a textual description of a 

graphical image or scene using the VRML computer 

language, and can be requested by and delivered to a web 

browser over the Internet. Once downloaded, in order for 

a computer to display the VRML graphical image or 

scene, a VRML document must be parsed—“turned into a 

set of objects the computer understands.” J.A. 934. For 

instance, a parser “will convert VRML . . . files into a set 

of C++ objects, which correspond to the nodes in the 

VRML file.” J.A. 1119. 

As a computer language, VRML refers to graphical objects as nodes. Nodes are a set of modeling constructs 

used to create a graphical image or scene. There are 

three general types of nodes: shape nodes, such as a 

Sphere node or a Cube node, for defining an object’s 

geometry; property nodes, such as a Material node, for 

defining how a shape is drawn (for instance its color); and 

grouping nodes, such as a Group node or a Separator 

node, for gathering nodes together as a single object. 

Each node also contains “one or more fields . . . [which is] 

for the node to store information specific to itself,” such as 

the radius field of a Sphere node. J.A. 936. In terms of 

VRML syntax, nodes are arranged in a hierarchical 

structure, such that one node can be embedded within 

another. Specifically, grouping nodes “can have other 
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 5

nodes within them.” J.A. 937. The syntactical order and

hierarchical structure of the nodes impact how they 

interact. For instance, Pesce uses a basic example of

drawing “a big yellow sun” in VRML by using a Separator 

node that contains first a Material node defining the color 

yellow and second a Sphere node defining the shape and 

size as shown in the following material from Pesce. 

J.A. 938–39 (“Sphere node,” “Material node,” and “Separator group node” markup our own).1 Of relevance to this 

case, Pesce also describes other VRML nodes such as the 

WWWAnchor node, which is a grouping node that makes 

a graphical object respond to a user action, such as loading a webpage when a user clicks, and the Transform

node, which defines the relative location of various objects 

or nodes that are part of a VRML scene. 

On June 17, 2015, in a combined final written decision for both inter partes review proceedings the Board 

concluded by a preponderance of evidence that Pesce 

 

1 Our labeling of the nodes corresponds to the labeling that the parties themselves utilized. 
6 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

anticipates the challenged claims of the ’854 and ’732 

patents.

Micrografx appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and 

review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 

1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In construing claim terms, 

the Board adopts the “broadest reasonable construction in 

light of the specification in which” the terms appear. 37 

C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 

S. Ct. 2131. 2144–45 (2016). Anticipation is a question of 

fact reviewed for substantial evidence. In re Rambus Inc., 

494 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

I 

First, Micrografx contends that the Board erred by relying on the uncorrected claim language of the ’854 patent

instead of the narrower, corrected claim language. In its 

decision, the Board did recite the uncorrected claim 

language in places. But, as Google points out, the Board 

relied on the petition for inter partes review, which described the correct claim language, and the Board expressly relied on the supporting declaration of Google’s 

expert in reaching its decision, which used the corrected 

language. More importantly, Micrografx does not argue 

there is some material difference between the corrected 

and uncorrected language, or that utilizing the corrected 

language would render Pesce not anticipatory. During 

argument, Micrografx conceded that it could not “point 

[us] to a specific harm as a result of that mistake, other 

than the general observation that the Board was somewhat careless in its analysis . . . .” Oral Arg. at 1:44–55. 

The harmless error rule applies to appeals from the 

Board. See, e.g., In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. 
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 7

Cir. 2004); In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1387 (Fed. Cir.

2002). Since Micrografx itself is unable to point to any

harm, the error by the Board in reciting the uncorrected 

claim language in its written decision was harmless.

II

Second, Micrografx argues that the Board failed to 

consider the parser source code that converts VRML to 

C++ or Micrografx’s arguments based on that translation. 

Before the Board, Micrografx argued that once a VRML 

document is parsed—or translated—into C++ objects, 

each VRML node becomes a separate C++ object such that 

no single C++ object satisfies all the claim limitations of 

an interactive vector object. In other words, Micrografx 

wanted the Board to analyze whether Pesce anticipates 

using C++ as opposed to using VRML. Because the Board 

analyzed anticipation using the VRML version and did 

not explicitly reference the parser source code, Micrografx 

argues that it failed to consider material evidence in the 

record. This argument has no merit.

While the Board must “provide[] . . . an []adequate 

predicate upon which to evaluate its decision,” Power 

Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 

2015), which includes “sufficient findings and reasoning to 

permit meaningful appellate scrutiny,” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1997), there is no 

merit to Micrografx’s argument that the Board failed to do 

so here. This is not a case where the Board failed to 

present a reasoned explanation for its decision, to tether 

its analysis to the record, or to consider relevant evidence. 

Cf. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 

(Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1352–53 

(Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002). The Board is “not require[d] . . . to address 

every argument raised by a party or explain every possible reason supporting its conclusion.” Synopsys, Inc. v. 
8 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 

2016).

Here, we cannot assume that the Board failed to consider the parser source code or Micrografx’s arguments 

based on the translation that it produced because these

were not explicitly recited in the Board’s final written 

decision. To the contrary, it is evident from the Board’s 

description of Pesce that the Board was well aware of the 

difference between VRML and computer programming 

languages like C++ and understood the process of parsing 

a VRML document from VRML into C++. The Board also 

considered and asked targeted questions regarding this 

process of parsing and Micrografx’s related arguments at 

the oral hearing. It is of no moment that the Board did 

not explicitly address these aspects in its final written 

decision. There are no underlying factual issues that the 

Board needed to resolve as a predicate to review of this 

issue on appeal because the relevant facts are undisputed. 

On the merits, we see no error in the Board’s rejection

of Micrografx’s argument. The question is whether Pesce 

does not anticipate because, once parsed into C++, VRML 

nodes are separate C++ objects such that no single C++ 

object satisfies all the claim limitations. But this does not 

prevent anticipation of the claimed invention by Pesce. 

To be sure, once parsed into C++ Pesce no longer satisfies 

the claim limitations, but there is no merit to Micrografx’s 

argument that the claim limitations must be satisfied 

after translation has occurred. Anticipation does not 

require that Pesce satisfy all the claim limitations at 

every stage of implementation—i.e., both in VRML and 

once parsed into C++. The fact that Pesce does not anticipate in C++ is irrelevant if the VRML version of Pesce 

does anticipate the invention. The Board purposely 

focused its analysis on the VRML version. The claims 

specify that the interactive vector object is “operable to be 

downloaded over a network.” ’854 patent, col. 12 ll. 23–

24. Pesce is quite clear that the VRML version is down-
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 9

loaded over a network, not the parsed C++ version. Only 

after a VRML document is downloaded can it then be 

parsed into C++. Also, the claims of the ’854 and ’732 

patents do not require that the interactive vector object 

correspond to a computer programming language such as 

C++, as opposed to VRML. We see no error in the Board’s 

determination. 

III

Third, Micrografx argues that the Board’s decision is 

not supported by substantial evidence in several respects. 

A 

Micrografx challenges the Board’s finding that Pesce 

discloses “an interactive vector object” as required by the 

relevant claims of the ’854 and ’732 patents. The Board 

construed “an interactive vector object” as “a computer 

software object that includes at least a mathematic description of a graphical image and one definition so that 

the graphical image responds to events.” J.A. 11. In its 

decision, the Board relied on an example from Pesce that

describes how to create a hyperlinked image of a sun in

VRML, specifically using a Separator node, a Material

node, a WWWAnchor node, and a Sphere node. The 

example is as follows with node identifications added.2

 

2 Our labeling of the nodes corresponds to the labeling that the parties themselves utilized. Note, the final 

brace of the Separator group node is excluded from view 

since in Pesce this example continues with additional 

nodes after the WWWAnchor node that are included 

within the same Separator group node.
10 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

J.A. 948–49. In this example, all of the different nodes 

are grouped together by a Separator node. Within the 

Separator node is a Material node to define the color 

yellow and then a WWWAnchor node to link the object to 

a URL address. Within the WWWAnchor node is a 

Sphere node to define the shape of the object displayed. 

The Board found that the WWWAnchor node in this 

example discloses an interactive vector object because it is

a computer software object, it contains the Sphere node, 

which discloses a mathematical description of a graphical 

image, and, as a grouping node, WWWAnchor links all of 

the nodes it contains to the URL specified in its name 

field so that the graphical image responds to a user’s

click.

Micrografx argues that the Board ignored characteristics of computer software objects like the WWWAnchor

node. Micrografx asserts that, as a container object, 

WWWAnchor does not take on or “inherit” the attributes
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 11

of the nodes it contains, such as the Sphere node, and 

therefore cannot disclose a mathematical description of a 

graphical image.3 However, Micrografx fails to appreciate 

how the different nodes in Pesce work together and can be 

grouped collectively within a grouping node, such as 

WWWAnchor, to create a single graphical object that 

discloses an interactive vector object, such as the example 

of a hyperlinked sun. Expert testimony from both sides

agreed that the Sphere node in VRML is within the 

WWWAnchor node and by clicking anywhere within the 

area defined by the Sphere node, a user will be directed to 

the URL defined by the WWWAnchor node. Because the 

Sphere node is contained within the WWWAnchor node 

and defines its graphical representation, the WWWAnchor node unquestionably exhibits the attributes of the 

Sphere node and discloses a mathematic description of a 

graphical image. We find substantial evidence to support

the Board’s finding that Pesce discloses an interactive 

vector object. 

B 

Next, Micrografx argues that substantial evidence 

does not support the Board’s finding that Pesce discloses 

“a property defining the command to be performed in 

response to the event within the active area of the vector 

object,” as required by various claims of the ’854 patent. 

The Board construed this limitation as a “characteristic 

describing an instruction to be carried out by computer 

software in response to a user action.” J.A. 14. In its

petition, Google asserted that “[t]he WWWAnchor node 

that anchors another node to a URL corresponds to the 

 

3 Micrografx also contends that once VRML is 

parsed into C++ objects, the WWWAnchor node no longer 

contains the Sphere node. We have elsewhere rejected 

Micrografx’s claim that anticipation should be measured 

based on the objects as translated into C++. 
12 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

claimed property.” J.A. 22 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Board found that 

Google had “identifie[d] the field within WWWAnchor 

that specifies the URL of the anchor and include[d] an 

excerpt of code from Pesce that links WWWAnchor to the 

root URL of the Web. Pesce describes that if a user clicks 

on the Sun, a message will be sent to go to the page 

http://www.w3.org.” J.A. 23 (internal citations omitted). 

In other words, the Board found that the name field 

within the WWWAnchor node discloses this limitation 

because it specifies the URL address that is linked to all 

of the nodes contained within the WWWAnchor node. 

Micrografx asserts that the claim language, “a property defining the command to be performed,” requires that 

the property reference a behavior. But, Micrografx argues, the name field of the WWWAnchor node simply lists 

the URL address without indicating any behavior. Micrografx points out that narrowly focusing on the name field 

by itself would not reveal any information regarding what 

command the computer software is supposed to carry out 

in response to a user action. The problem is that Micrografx overlooks the surrounding context of the name field 

as part of the WWWAnchor node, a context on which the 

Board itself relied. 

The Board did not err in finding that the name field in 

context, as part of the WWWAnchor node, satisfies this 

limitation. All nodes within the WWWAnchor node are 

linked to the same URL address. Since fields are where a 

node “store[s] information specific to itself,” one must also 

look to the surrounding context—the node type, i.e.

WWWAnchor—to understand how the name field functions. Here, the name field is part of the WWWAnchor

node, which links all of the nodes it contains to a URL 

address and loads the URL in response to a user click. 

The name field as part of the WWWAnchor node meets 

the Board’s construction of this limitation. It is a “characteristic describing an instruction to be carried out by 
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 13

computer software in response to a user action,” J.A. 14, 

namely loading the linked URL address when a user 

clicks on the graphical image. Substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that Pesce discloses this 

limitation.

C 

Lastly, Micrografx challenges the Board’s finding that 

Pesce discloses the claim limitation “the data further 

comprising . . . a location of the vector object,” present in 

claims 3, 12, 57, and 66 of the ’854 patent and claims 3 

and 4 of the ’732 patent. Dependent claim 3 of the ’854 

patent is illustrative. Independent claim 1 requires: 

An interactive vector object . . . comprising:

data operable to be downloaded to a client 

system connectable to the network and in 

connection with a vector graphics network 

file to render an image of the vector object 

on the client system . . . . 

Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and requires that the “data further compris[e] a type, a size, and a location of the 

vector object.” Micrografx challenges only the Board’s

finding regarding the last part of this limitation—“a 

location of the vector object.”

Before the Board, Google pointed to an example described in Pesce of a hyperlinked image of an earth positioned relative to a hyperlinked image of a sun in VRML, 

specifically using a Separator node, a Transform node, a 

Material node, a WWWAnchor node, and a Sphere node

as shown by the following (with node identifications 

added).4

 

4 Our labeling of the nodes corresponds to the labeling that the parties themselves utilized. Note, the final 
14 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

J.A. 953–54. The Board found that the Transform node in 

this VRML example from Pesce discloses this limitation—

i.e. “an interactive vector object . . . comprising . . . data 

. . . comprising . . . a location of the vector object.” ’854 

patent, col. 12 ll. 22–37. We see no error in the Board’s 

determination. In this example, all of the different nodes 

related to the hyperlinked image of an earth are grouped 

together by a Separator node. Within the Separator node 

 

brace of the Separator group node is excluded from view 

since in Pesce this example continues with additional 

nodes after the WWWAnchor node that are included 

within the same Separator group node.
MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 15

is a Transform node, which defines “the position, orientation, size, and center of any nodes that follow it in a 

group.” J.A. 941. In this example, the Transform node 

defines the position of the earth relative to the position of 

the sun—i.e. it defines the location of the vector object. 

Micrografx argues that the Transform node of Pesce 

does not disclose this limitation. According to Micrografx, 

the Transform node can never disclose “the data [of the 

interactive vector object] further comprising . . . a location 

of the vector object” limitation because the Transform

node in Pesce provides the location information for nodes 

that follow it in a group. If the Transform node comes 

before the node that corresponds to the interactive vector 

object, it will define its location but will not be contained 

within the interactive vector object and therefore not 

satisfy the claim limitation. If the Transform node comes 

after the node that corresponds to the interactive vector 

object, it will not define the location of the vector object. 

Therefore, Micrografx argues, in this example neither the 

Separator node nor the WWWAnchor node can correspond 

to the interactive vector object; the Separator node does 

not come after the Transform node and therefore the 

Transform node does not define its location while the 

WWWAnchor node comes after the Transform node and 

therefore does not contain the Transform node. 

Micrografx overlooks how the different nodes in Pesce 

work together and can be grouped within a Separator 

node. In this example, the Separator node corresponds to 

the vector object. As Pesce makes clear, grouping nodes 

such as the Separator node “gather other nodes together, 

allowing collections of nodes to be treated as a single 

object.” J.A. 1190. On its own, the Separator node has no 

graphical representation on a user’s screen. Rather, its 

appearance depends on the various nodes contained 

within the Separator node. In this example, the Separator node is used to group the Transform node, the Material node, the WWWAnchor node, and the Sphere node, 
16 MICROGRAFX, LLC v. GOOGLE INC. 

which collectively produce the hyperlinked image of a blue 

earth. Since the Transform node comes first within this 

group, it defines the location of nodes that follow it. Thus, 

the Transform node defines the location of the hyperlinked image of a blue earth, defining its position relative 

to that of the sun. Since the Separator node’s graphical 

appearance is a hyperlinked image of a blue earth and the 

Transform node defines the location of this image, the 

Transform node discloses “the data further comprising . . . 

a location of the vector object” limitation. Moreover, there 

is no requirement in the claims that the data disclose the 

location of the entire vector object as opposed to the 

location of a part of the vector object. Thus, even though 

the Transform node does not come before the Separator 

node, by defining the location of the other subsequent 

nodes within the Separator node, at a minimum the 

Transform node defines the location of a part of the interactive vector object. Substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s finding.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s finding of anticipation by Pesce of claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 

16, 19, 44, 54–57, 59, 61–66, 68, 69, and 71 of the ’854 

patent and claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 36, and 42 of the ’732 

patent.

AFFIRMED