PTAB

IPR2014-01340

Google Inc v. Visual Real Estate Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Apparatus for Generating a Continuum of Image Data
  • Brief Description: The ’800 patent discloses an apparatus for generating composite images of a geographic area, such as a street-level view. The system captures multiple images from disparate points along a continuum (e.g., from a moving vehicle), aligns portions of these images (e.g., vertical slices) to form a continuous pictorial "ribbon," and associates the resulting composite image with recorded geospatial data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-4, 10, 11, 13-15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Di Bernardo

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Di Bernardo (Application # 2002/0047895).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Di Bernardo discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Di Bernardo teaches a computer-implemented system for synthesizing composite images of a geographic location by capturing individual image frames from a video camera moving along a path. The system creates the composite by extracting an optical column (a vertical set of pixels) from selected frames and stacking these columns side-by-side. Di Bernardo explicitly discloses using a GPS receiver to record positional data (latitude and longitude) and associating this data with the composite image. Furthermore, it teaches combining the composite image with an aerial map and overlaying interactive icons that link to additional data, meeting the limitations of the dependent claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-4, 10, 11, 13-15, and 18 over Di Bernardo in view of Kumar

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Di Bernardo (Application # 2002/0047895), Kumar (Patent 6,597,818).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Di Bernardo is interpreted as not expressly disclosing certain features of claim 1, such as recording specific types of positional data or associating it with the composite image, Kumar’s teachings render these features obvious. Kumar discloses a sensor platform that provides detailed engineering support data, including GPS information, inertial navigation system data, camera attitude, and rotation. Kumar uses this data to geo-register video images with reference imagery, thereby associating objects in the video with their precise geo-locations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kumar’s detailed positional data system with Di Bernardo’s image synthesis method to achieve improved accuracy for identifying locations within a scene. Further, incorporating Kumar’s teachings on overlaying information would add valuable context for a viewer. Petitioner asserted this combination represented the predictable use of known techniques to improve a similar device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable because both references disclose systems for capturing, processing, and presenting geographic video data, and applying Kumar’s geo-registration techniques to Di Bernardo’s composite images would predictably enhance their functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 13-15 over Roman in view of Kumar

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Roman ("Interactive design of multi-perspective images for visualizing urban landscapes"), Kumar (Patent 6,597,818).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Di Bernardo, Petitioner argued that Roman teaches the core image-synthesis elements of claim 1. Roman discloses an interactive system for creating multi-perspective images from sideways-looking video captured from a moving vehicle. It creates a composite image by extracting a line of pixels (typically vertical) from appropriate video frames and abutting them together. Petitioner again relied on Kumar to supply the explicit teachings for recording comprehensive positional data (including camera pose and orientation) and associating that data with the composite image, as well as overlaying related information.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kumar’s geo-registration and data overlay functionality with Roman’s image generation system for the same reasons as with Di Bernardo: to improve locational accuracy and add meaningful context for the viewer. This would have been a simple application of known techniques to improve a similar system for visualizing geographic locations.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that applying Kumar’s established geo-location methods to Roman’s image processing system would have yielded predictable results without altering the fundamental function of Roman’s system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that added Burgess (Patent 6,904,160) to teach a data file with GPS metadata, and grounds that combined Roman, Kumar, and Di Bernardo to ensure all dependent claim features were met.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "a continuum of image data": Petitioner proposed this term means "two or more images captured along a path." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification and necessary to read on prior art systems that create composite images from a sequence of video frames.
  • "associate the composite image with a particular portion of the subject": Petitioner proposed this term means to "associate the composite image with a particular parcel of a geographic area." This construction supports the argument that prior art systems which link composite street views to map coordinates meet this limitation.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’800 patent was not entitled to the filing date of its parent application (August 31, 2005). Petitioner argued the parent application disclosed only conventional "stitching processes," from which the ’800 patent specification expressly distinguishes itself. Therefore, Petitioner contended the challenged claims were only entitled to the patent's actual filing date of February 6, 2007, which ensures that all asserted prior art references (published between 2002 and 2004) are valid under §102.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 10, 11, 13-15, and 18 of the ’800 patent as unpatentable.