Ex Parte DU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 18, 201813362920 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/362,920 0113112012 113694 7590 Oblon/Corelogic Inc. 1940 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 04/20/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Wei DU 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 385865US8 6646 EXAMINER SUGLO, JANET L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2864 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2018 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): oblonpat@oblon.com patentdocket@oblon.com tfarrell@oblon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEI DU, MARK DROLLINGER, and JASON STRADTNER Appeal2017-008071 Application 13/362,920 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The Invention The Appellants claim an apparatus, method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium for collecting position point information for a hazard assessment. Claim 16 is illustrative: 16. A method for collecting position point information for a hazard assessment, said method comprising: receiving data via an interface of a mobile electronics device; storing said data in a non-transitory storage device; Appeal2017-008071 Application 13/362,920 recording with a positioning module position point information about a present location of said mobile electronics device in response to said receiving; storing a plurality of position points in said non-transitory storage device such that the non-transitory storage device retains the plurality of position points that respectively correspond with positions of a structure located within the parcel;[lJ and determining a flood risk score for said parcel based on said plurality of position points. Myers Cavalcante The References US 7,191,064 Bl US 2013/0116920 Al The Rejections Mar. 13, 2007 May 9, 2013 (filed Nov. 7, 2011) The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-14, 16-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Cavalcante and claims 15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cavalcante in view of Myers. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need address only the independent claims (1, 16, and 24 ). 2 Those claims require storing position points that correspond with positions of a structure within a parcel. "Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior 1 The claim lacks antecedent basis for "the parcel". 2 In the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 the Examiner does not set forth any obviousness rationale regarding the limitations in the independent claims (Final Act. 6-7). 2 Appeal2017-008071 Application 13/362,920 art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. US.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Cavalcante discloses "flood aware systems and methods for routing travel" (i-f 2) wherein (i-f 11 ): A location detector detects a current location. A geographical database provides details of a given area. Selecting a destination causes a route generator to generate routes through the area from the current location. A flood simulator receives meteorological data and determines flooding along the routes. A risk-modeling unit determines the risk to travelers of using each route. The Examiner finds (Ans. 3): Cavalcante teaches mapping an entire parcel of land which includes streets and every structure within that parcel. Cavalcante shows in figures 1 and 2 [sic, figures 2 and 3A ], in the bottom left hand comer, that an airport is included, which is well known within the art to be a building within the parcel of land. It is further well known that several structures reside within the shown map in addition to the airport building such as the depicted Colleges and Universities near the center of the city. The Appellants challenge the Examiner's finding that it was well known in the art that an airport is a building within a parcel of land (Reply Br. 1-3). The Examiner, therefore, must provide evidentiary support for the finding, and the Examiner has not done so. Regarding Figures 2 and 3A, Cavalcante discloses: [0034] Fig. 2 shows an example of mapped 140 real time meteorological iconically representing weather 142 from flood simulation 124. The extent of flooding is indicated by cloud 142 clusters with the number of clouds in each cluster indicating how heavy flooding is in each particular location. 3 Appeal2017-008071 Application 13/362,920 [0035] FIG. 3A shows a mapped 150 example of risk results from the risk analysis model prior to application to routes with each risk 152 iconically indicated and generated from the flood simulation map of FIG. 2. Driving hazards are indicated by clusters of crash icons 152 with the number in each indicating the severity of the local hazard. The flood-risk-modeling unit 100 generates multiple routes, preferably ranked according to the flood level, incident risk and length. The Examiner does not establish that Cavalcante stores position points that correspond with positions of an airport structure or a university within the parcel in those maps. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Cavalcante discloses, either expressly or under principles of inherency, every limitation of the Appellants' independent claims. For the above reasons we reverse the rejections. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1-14, 16-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Cavalcante and claims 15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cavalcante in view of Myers are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation