Ex Parte Brydon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13651082 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/651,082 10/12/2012 Norrine Brydon CORLOG.038US 4393
113027 7590 03/01/2017
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. CoreLogicl 13027
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22202
EXAMINER
PEREZ-ARROYO, RAQUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORRINE BRYDON, SUSAN WILLIAMS,
MICHAEL SAMS A, and GUY KOPPERUD1
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN R. KENNY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 41—60, all pending claims of the application.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CoreLogic
Acquisition Co. I, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1—40 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the application relates to valuation of quality
levels of a room in a home, such as a kitchen or bathroom, for insurance
underwriting purposes or other valuation purposes. Spec. 13.3 Claims 41
and 51 are independent. Claim 51 is illustrative and is reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized'.
51. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing a graphical user interface to receive input data
associated with quantity of at least one of an appliance, a
structure, or an accessory in a room;
receiving, via the graphical user interface, objective
quantity data associated with the at least one of an appliance, a
structure, or an accessory in the room;
providing a graphical user interface to receive input data
associated with material type associated with the at least one of
an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room;
receiving, via the graphical user interface, objective
quality indicator data associated with the at least one of an
appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room;
calculating, via the computer system, a quality metric for
the room by using both the objective quantity data and the
objective quality indicator data associated with the at least one
of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room;
said method performed programmatically by execution of
program instructions by one or more computing devices.
Appeal Br. 13—14 (Claims App’x).
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed
October 12, 2012 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed
June 3, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed December 2, 2015; (4)
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed April 22, 2016; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 20, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Moore et al. (“Moore”) US 7,373,303 B2
Hoguet US 2009/0160856 Al
Seitomer et al. US 2010/0042442 Al
(“Seitomer”)
REJECTIONS
Claims 41—43, 45, 46, 49-53, 55, 56, 59, and 60 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Seitomer. Final Act. 3—11.
Claims 44 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Seitomer and Moore. Final Act. 12—
14.
Claims 47, 48, 57, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Seitomer and Hoguet. Final Act. 14—
18.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding Seitomer discloses “providing a
graphical user interface to receive input data associated with quantity of at
least one of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in a room,” as recited
in claim 51?
May 13, 2008
June 25, 2009
Feb. 18,2010
3
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
2. Does the Examiner err in finding Seitomer discloses “receiving,
via the graphical user interface, objective quantity data associated with the
at least one of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room,” as
recited in claim 51?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding Seitomer discloses “providing a
graphical user interface to receive input data associated with material type
associated with the at least one of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory
in the room,” as recited in claim 51?
4. Does the Examiner err in finding Seitomer discloses “receiving,
via the graphical user interface, objective quality indicator data associated
with the at least one of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the
room,” as recited in claim 51?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants’ contentions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—4) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—
4). We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner,
and we highlight the following for emphasis.
4
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
Issue 1
The Examiner finds Seitomer discloses “providing a graphical user
interface to receive input data associated with quantity of at least one of an
appliance, a structure, or an accessory in a room,” as recited in claim 51.
Ans. 2—3 (citing Seitomer || 31, 43).
Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding is erroneous. Specifically,
Appellants argue
paragraph [0031] of Seitomer states that “[a]t a step 310, a user
. . . enters data pertaining to the different characteristics of the
customer’s home into the software application through a user
interface” and that “[t]his data can include the quantity and
quality of the home renovations and home contents'1'’ (emphasis
added). The Appellant respectfully submits that the Office
mischaracterizes the reference by stating that Seitomer
discloses that “this data can include the quantity of the home
contents''’ (Appeal Brief, page 3, emphasis added).
Reply Br. 2.
We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “Seitomer, in paragraph [0031] explicitly teaches
that the software application receives the data from the user through the user
interface, where the data can include the quantity of the home contents.”
Ans. 3.
As further confirmation of the Examiner’s finding we note Seitomer
relates to using a software package to estimate a total replacement cost
(“TRC”) estimate of a home for insurance purposes. Seitomer | 31. The
TRC estimate includes all contents of the home including appliances,
structures (additions and alterations), and home furnishings. See, e.g.,
Seitomer || 5 (“based on their quantity and quality”), 14, Table 4. Thus,
data including quality and quantity of all home contents (including
5
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
appliances — see Table 4 (“Small Appliances”)) is entered into a graphical
user interface. Seitomer ]f 17.
Thus, in view of the Examiner’s findings, we agree that Seitomer
discloses “providing a graphical user interface to receive input data
associated with quantity of at least one of an appliance, a structure, or an
accessory in a room,” as claimed.
Issue 2
The Examiner finds Seitomer discloses “receiving, via the graphical
user interface, objective quantity data associated with the at least one of an
appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room,” as recited in claim 51.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 3 (citing Seitomer || 6, 31, 43).
In response, Appellants argue the ‘software application 132’ does not
receive ‘objective quantity data associated with the at least one of an
appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room’. Instead, the ‘software
application 132’ receives square footage data and subjective overall quality
data.'” Appeal Br. 7.
We find this argument unpersuasive because we agree with the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Seitomer. For example, with respect to
entry of data into a user interface, Seitomer states “the broker enters the
quantity and quality of home furnishings.” Seitomer || 6, 43 (emphasis
added). We also agree home furnishings includes appliances in Seitomer,
because Seitomer’s discussion of TRC indicates a need to value all contents
of the home, including appliances, for insurance valuation purposes.
Seitomer || 6, 43, Table 4 (“Small Appliances”). Because claim 51 recites
“data associated with the at least one of an appliance, a structure, or an
6
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
accessory in the room (emphasis added),” the Examiner need not also
demonstrate receiving data associated with a structure or an accessory.
Issue 3
The Examiner finds Seitomer discloses “providing a graphical user
interface to receive input data associated with material type associated with
the at least one of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room,” as
recited in claim 51. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4 (citing Seitomer 143).
Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding is erroneous because “the
phrase ‘quantity and quality of building materials and labor used in the home
renovations’ should not be interpreted as necessarily including ‘quality of
building materials of the user’s home’, as alleged by the Office.” Reply
Br. 4.
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive because we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that “Seitomer teaches in paragraph [0043] the user
enters the quality of building materials of the user's home. The quality of
building materials is input data associated with the material type associated
with a structure or accessory in a room of the home.” Ans. 4 (emphasis
added).
Issue 4
The Examiner finds Seitomer discloses “receiving, via the graphical
user interface, objective quality indicator data associated with the at least
one of an appliance, a structure, or an accessory in the room,” as recited in
claim 51. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4 (citing Seitomer || 6, 17, 31, 43).
7
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
Appellants argue the Examiner’s finding is erroneous because
‘“software application 132’ does not actually receive ‘objective quality
indicator data associated with the at least one of an appliance, a structure, or
an accessory in the room’. Instead, the ‘software application 132’ receives
square footage data and subjective overall quality data" Appeal Br. 9
(citing Seitomer || 27, 28, 31). Appellants further argue “the phrase ‘the
quantity and quality of the home renovations and home contents’ should not
be interpreted as necessarily including ‘the quality of the home contents’.
Moreover, ‘home contents’ do not necessarily include ‘an appliance, a
structure, or an accessory in the room.’” Reply Br. 5.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of error. Appellants fail
to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why the Examiner’s
finding is erroneous. In particular, Appellants argue other portions of
Seitomer, without specifically addressing the portions and rationale relied
upon by the Examiner in the rejection. For example, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Seitomer discloses the software application receives the
data, via the user interface, which includes the quality of the home contents.
Ans. 4 (citing Seitomer 131). We also agree home contents includes
appliances in Seitomer, because Seitomer’s discussion of TRC indicates a
need to value all contents of the home, including appliances, for insurance
valuation purposes. Seitomer || 6, 43, Table 4. Moreover, Appellants
provide insufficient evidence why the Examiner’s finding that the phrase
“the quantity and quality of the home renovations and home contents”
discloses “the quality of the home contents” is inconsistent with the plain
meaning of the claim language. Ans. 4 (citing Seitomer 131); See also In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
8
Appeal 2016-006587
Application 13/651,082
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of independent claim 51. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection
of independent claim 41, which is argued with independent claim 51, for
similar reasons. Appeal Br. 9. Dependent claims 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52,
53, 55, 56, 59, and 60 are not argued separately, and fall with their
respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 5—9.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 44, 47, 48, 54, 57, and58
With respect to the rejections of dependent claims 44, 47, 48, 54, 57,
and 58, Appellants rely on the arguments presented above in response to the
rejection of claim 51. Appeal Br. 10. Because the claims are not separately
argued, they stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
We therefore also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 44 and 54 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Seitomer and
Moore and of claims 47, 48, 57, and 58, as obvious over Seitomer and
Hoguet.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 41—60 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9