All words in a claim must be given due consideration. “A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here relate to methods for creating synthesized images of a geographic area through which a user may then visually navigate via a computer. The accused product is Google’s “Street View” mapping system. The claims recite the limitation, “depicting views of objects … the views being substantially elevations of the objects in the geographic area.” The parties agree that the “substantially elevations” limitation refers to front and side views of objects. However, according to Google, it does not infringe because its product produces images and views that are curved or spherical, and never flat like the “elevation” views captured by the simple horizontal camera described in the specification.
Issue(s): Whether depicting views as “substantially elevations” is limited to vertical flat (as opposed to curved or spherical) depictions of front or side views.
Holding(s): No. “A careful review of the record shows that the district court erred by excluding all curved or spherical views and images. … The district court’s construction requiring elevation, and ‘elevation’ alone in the strict sense, gives no effect to the ‘substantially’ modifier contained in the claims.” As an example, the court pointed to the specification’s disclosure of a fish-eye lens. “A photographic image through a fish-eye lens provides a curved, as opposed to vertical, projection, and almost certainly reflects curvature and perspective. In other words, the photographic image is not flat and not an elevation [in the pure dictionary sense].” Moreover, “[e]ven assuming this method results in vertical flat views, the specification does not state that this is the only way to create composite images, and this court perceives no reason to limit the disputed claim language based on that particular embodiment.”