Ex Parte Brock

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2010

09904741 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2010)

The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RONALD G. BROCK, SR.
____________

Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH A.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-4 and 41-45 and 54-57. Claims 5-17 and 51-53
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Claims
18-40 and 46-50 are withdrawn from consideration.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a system and method for providing real estate
information, and more particularly, to a system for providing real estate
information to a computer having access to a computer communication
network. (Specification 1:7-9).
Claims 1 and 41, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
Claim 1 (Previously presented): An interactive, computer-
implemented system for providing a comparison of at least two
of a plurality of real estate properties, said system comprising:
a real estate database storing data for each of said
plurality of real estate properties, said data comprising at least
one of address data, ownership data, physical characteristics
data, size data, geographic location data and monetary value
data, wherein said real estate database further stores an actual
monetary value for each of said plurality of real estate
properties, a plurality of monetary value-effecting
characteristics generally associated with real estate properties,
and a standard monetary value for each of said plurality of
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

3
monetary value-effecting characteristics;
an interface system for enabling a system user to input a
request for a comparison of at least a portion of said data of said
at least two of said plurality of real estate properties, said
request comprising information sufficient to identify said at
least two of said plurality of real estate properties, wherein said
request comprises the selection of a physical rating parameter
and/or a location rating parameter;
a processor which uses said information to obtain said
comparison of at least a portion of said data of said at least two
of said plurality of real estate properties, wherein said processor
is configured to provide a physical rating for each of said at
least two of said plurality of real estate properties, wherein said
processor is configured to provide a location rating for each of
said at least two of said plurality of real estate properties, and
wherein said processor is configured to use at least one of said
standard monetary values for each of said plurality of monetary
value-effecting characteristics to obtain a market standard
monetary value for each of said at least two of said plurality of
real estate properties; and
a delivery system for providing to said system user said
comparison of at least a portion of said data of said at least two
of said plurality of real estate properties, wherein said
comparison comprises, for each of said at least two of said
plurality of real estate properties, said physical rating, said
location rating, said actual monetary value, and said market
standard monetary value; and wherein said physical rating
parameter and/or said location rating parameter are used to
select the at least two of said plurality of real estate properties
provided in said comparison.

Claim 41 (Previously presented): An interactive, computer-
implemented system for providing a physical rating of a real
estate property, said system comprising:
a database storing: a plurality of physical factors for
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

4
each of a plurality of real estate properties, a weight indicator
associated with each of said plurality of physical factors; and a
factor score associated with each of said plurality of physical
factors;
an interface system for enabling a user to input a request
for a physical rating for one of said plurality of real estate
properties, said request comprising information sufficient to
identify said one of said plurality of real estate properties in
said database;
a processor which uses said information to obtain a
physical rating for said one of said plurality of real estate
properties, wherein said processor is configured to obtain said
physical rating by dividing said plurality of physical factors into
a plurality of sets each having a number of factors, said number
comprising at least two, wherein said weight indicators of each
of said plurality of factors in said each of said plurality of sets
are equal; and
a delivery system for providing said physical rating to
said user.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability1:

Apgar US 5,680,305 Oct. 21, 1997
Dugan US 5,857,174 Jan. 5, 1999
Khedkar US 6,609,188 B1 Aug. 19, 2003

1 Appellant cancelled claims 6-17 and 51-53 in a Supplemental Brief dated
February 6, 2009. Claims 6-17 and 51-53 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of these
claims (Answer 3).
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

5
“Three More Companies Become Weblink Wireless Enterprise
Solutions Partners; Datamatic, LynkUs and VoiceLink Join 19 Other
Companies in Wireless Data Effort” PR Newswire. New York, May
4, 2000. pg. 1.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
over Dugan in view of Khedkar.
The Examiner rejected claims 41-45 and 54-56 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Dugan in view Apgar.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Dugan in view of Three More Companies.
ISSUES
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
4 and 57 on appeal as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Dugan in view of Khedkar on the grounds that a person with ordinary skill
in the art would understand that market standard monetary value is a form of
standardization as found in real estate comparables used to establish pricing
for properties in a given area?
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 41-45 and 54-56 on appeal as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dugan in view of Khedkar on the grounds that a
person with ordinary skill in the art would understand that Dugan
discloses equal weight indicators of each of a plurality of factors
when the factors have different ranges?
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Appellant’s Specification does not specifically define the term
“market standard monetary value”, nor does it utilize the term contrary to its
customary meaning.
2. The Specification only describes the term “market standard
monetary value” in terms of examples. (Specification 18:6-30).
3. The ordinary and customary definition of the term “standard” as
defined by Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) is:
“4 : something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure
of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.” (www.merriam-
ebster.com/dictionary/standard)
4. The examples given by the Specification (FF 2) show a
property value rating system which produces a monetary adjustment by
adding or subtracting values of the subject property based on property
characteristics which affect the effective rent paid by the user. For example,
if a fireplace is included as part of the property, a $15 increase adjustment is
given against the cost of the rent, whereas, if for example, the sewer charges
are not included, this charge is added to the effective rent value.
(Specification 18:6-30).
5. The Examiner found that Dugan does not specifically discloses
a standard monetary value but Khedkar does in that “(‘FIG. 11 shows
possible adjustments 210 (in thousands of dollars to a comparable's price, as
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

7
a function of the different number of bathrooms between the subject and
comparable property...’)”. (Answer 5).
6. Dugan discloses weight indicators of each of said plurality of
location factors which uses an Idea Point System (IPS) which assigns, inter
alia, a range 1-10 for location; a range of 1-15 for surrounding
neighborhood; a range of 1-25 for improvements, a range of 1-25 for utility
and appeal. (Col. 7, ll. 20-33).
7. Khedkar discloses:
Any difference between the subject property and
comparable property that causes a comparable to
be more or less valuable than the subject property
produces an adjustment. If the comparable is
superior to the subject property, the comparable's
price is decreased. If the comparable is inferior to
the subject property, the comparable's price is
increased…. For example, FIG. 10 illustrates
sample adjustment rules 200, which are triggered
by differences between the subject property's and
comparable's attributes. FIG. 11 shows possible
adjustments 210 (in thousands of dollars) to a
comparable's price, as a function of the different
number of bathrooms between the subject and the
comparable property. … The Living Area 222 has
been adjusted by (22+ (175000x0.00003)) =$27.25
… The subject property has a Pool 236 and the
comparable does not thus requiring an adjustment
of $10,000 to the sales price of the comparable.
(Col. 10. ll. 23-59).
ANALYSIS
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, and reverse the rejection of
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

8
claims 41-45 and 54-57.
Appellant argues that the claimed term:
… [M]arket standard monetary value does not
depend upon the selection of any particular
property (subject property or otherwise). In fact, in
the present invention, market standard value does
not in any way depend on the particular property
selected. Instead, the market standard value is
determined by adjusting the recited "actual
monetary value" by the "standard monetary
values", which are not dependent upon any
particular subject property.
(Appeal Br. 7).
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the following
reasons:
Preliminarily, we note that Appellant’s Specification does not
specifically define the term “market standard monetary value”, nor does it
utilize the term contrary to its customary meaning (FF 1). The Specification
only describes the term “market standard monetary value” in terms of
examples. (FF 2, 4). We find that the ordinary and customary definition of
the term “standard” is: something set up and established by authority as a rule for
the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality. (FF 3).
The Examiner found that Khedhar discloses a standard monetary
value in that Khedhar discloses providing adjustments to a property using
comparable rules. (FF 5, 7).
Appellants however argue that “… it should be appreciated that
Khedkar teaches an adjustment for a property that varies in each scenario
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

9
depending on the selection of the subject property, which does not provide a
standard monetary value.” (Appeal Br. 7).
We disagree with Appellant because, Appellant’s arguments are not
based on limitations appearing in the claims in that claim 1 does not specify
that the market standard monetary value is independent of the selection of
any particular property as argued by Appellant. Limitations appearing in the
specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass
Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In addition, we find that Khedhar discloses measuring property values
using comparable rules which, for example, adjust upwards of $10K if the
property includes a pool (FF 7). Thus, Khedhar discloses adding or
subtracting values for a given property based on the property characteristics
referenced to a rule based comparable.
Appellant’s arguments to the same deficiencies in Dugan, are likewise
unpersuasive because Appellant is attacking the Dugan reference
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references and
the Examiner found that Khedhar and not Dugan discloses the argued feature
(FF 5). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403
F.2d 754, 757-58 (CCPA 1968).
We also affirm the rejections of dependent claims 2-4 since Appellant
has not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

10
Independent claims 41 and 54 each include the limitation of wherein
said weight indicators of each of said plurality of location factors in said
each of said plurality of sets are equal. We find that Dugan discloses weight
indicators of each of said plurality of location factors which are not equal.
Rather, Dugan uses an Idea Point System (IPS) which assigns different
weight indicator ranges, inter alia, a range 1-10 for location; a range of 1-15
for surrounding neighborhood; a range of 1-25 for improvements, a range of
1-25 for utility and appeal. The Examiner maintains that because Dugan
discloses adjusting values for markets to any value, the claim requirements
are met. (Answer 14-15). However, this logic does not answer the question
of why it would be obvious to choose equal weight indicators as required by
the claims. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 41 and
54.
Since claims 42-45, 55-57 depend from claims 41, 54, respectively,
and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 41 and 54, the rejection
of the dependent claims likewise cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-4, and has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 41-45 and claims 54-57.
Appeal 2009-014905
Application 09/904,741

11
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 41-45 and claims 54-57
is REVERSED.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

MP

Steve Hassid, Silicon Edge Law Group LLP
1115 1/2 YALE STREET
SANTA MONICA CA 90403