Ex Parte Fetsch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12209718 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
12/209,718 09/12/2008 Andrew F. Fetsch 78089-400100 5071
27717 7590
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive
Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
09/27/2017 EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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):
patentdocket_chi @ seyfarth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW F. FETSCH
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1,3,5, and 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a user-interactive real estate search
system and display. Spec. 11, Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below.
1. A computerized method of selecting and displaying
listing information relating to real estate property,
comprising the steps of:
establishing a searchable database of information
pertaining to a plurality of real property listings;
providing an interface for a user to select and
otherwise enter search criteria, said interface including a
search window having a plurality of differing search
criteria provided for the user to select from, said search
criteria including some or all of: a geographical map of a
general selected area presented in a map window with a
user-sizable area-of-interest within that map; location
relative to a selected point; rental fee; room(s); bathrooms,
and utilities;
simultaneously, and without a user search execution
command, displaying in a display area associated with said
search window a numerical total of the number of listings
meeting said search criteria in real time as the user makes
and changes search criteria selections;
executing a search according to said search criteria
to retrieve listings meeting said search criteria; and
allowing the user to display at least some of said
listings meeting said search criteria.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1,3,5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Hartz, Jr. et al. (US 6,636,803 Bl, issued Oct. 21,
2003 (hereinafter “Hartz”)), Katzfey et al. (US 7,725,359 Bl, issued May
2
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
25, 2010 (hereinafter “Katzfey”)), Kabel et al. (US 7,268,703 Bl, issued
Sept. 11, 2007 (hereinafter “Kabel”)), and Piekos et al. (US 2007/0226189
Al, published Sept. 27, 2007 (hereinafter “Piekos”)). Final Act. 11—17.1
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, on pages 9—15 of the Appeal Brief and on pages 3—
5 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is in error.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have
not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 1,3,5, and 6.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant’s
arguments on pages 2—7 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s
response and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner and concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of unpatentability. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Hartz teaches a real estate system where a user can select or input
property characteristics into fields to search property listings in a database of
available properties, where the matching listings are displayed in a text
window and a map window with results is generated based on areas
designated by the user. Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 12—13 (citing Hartz, Figs. 3, 6,
col. 2,11. 43—60, col. 4,11. 3—67, col. 5,1. 43—col. 6,1. 8.). The Examiner
finds that Hartz does not explicitly teach search criteria selections,
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 14, 2016
(“Appeal Br.”), Reply Brief filed January 18, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), Final
Action mailed October 15, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed November 18, 2016 (“Ans.”).
3
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
displaying the numerical total of the number of listings found, or a user
sizeable area of interest. Ans. 3^4; Final Act. 13. The Examiner thus relies
on Katzfey to teach the search criteria2 * 4and the numerical total because the
combination of Hartz and Katzfey would allow a user to more efficiently
search real estate listings by selecting desired criteria and, further, relies on
Kabel to teach a user sizeable area of interest because the combination of
Hartz, Katzfey, and Kabel would allow a user to more efficiently filter
search areas for listings. Ans. 4—5; Final Act. 13—14 (citing Katzfey, Figs. 2,
7, 8, col. 11,11. 32-67; Kabel, Fig. 4E, col. 5,1. 52-col. 6,1. 6). The
Examiner finds that Kabel, which teaches a navigation device with a map
display where the user can define the area to identify the location of
preselected conditions, is reasonably pertinent to the problem the Appellant
is concerned with. Ans. 5—6; Final Act. 14; Kabel, Abstract, Fig. 4E, col. 5,
1. 52—col. 6,1. 6. The Examiner further finds that the combination of Hartz,
Katzfey, and Kabel does not explicitly teach displaying the search results
simultaneously and in real time and thus relies on Piekos to teach real time
simultaneous display because the combination of Hartz, Katzfey, Kabel, and
Piekos would efficiently display results to users in real time without user
intervention in executing the search. Ans. 6—7; Final Act. 15 (citing Piekos
113,9, 10, 60-62, and 71).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because
Piekos teaches conducting a text search, but fails to teach a structured search
2 We additionally note that in addition to Katzfey teaching search criteria,
Hartz teaches search criteria including number of bedrooms, bathrooms, and
price of property, in column 4, line 61 through column 5, line 18 and column
5, lines 44 though line 60, and a map where the user can select a specific
area (user sizable area of interest), in column 6, line 9 though line 32.
4
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
of specific criteria, a database of real property listings, or a user sizable area
of interest. App. Br. 9-11. Further, Appellant argues that Hartz teaches a
map of an area of interest, but fails to teach a user sizable area of interest.
Id. at 11—12. Additionally, Appellant argues that Kabel has no bearing on
the present invention and fails to teach a user sizable area of interest. Id. at
12. Appellant further asserts Katzfey fails to teach a user sizable area of
interest and a simultaneous and real time display of search results without
having to enter a search command. Id. at 12—13. Finally, Appellant argues
the Examiner cobbled the cited references together using hindsight. Id. at
14.
With regard to Appellant’s argument that Piekos teaches conducting a
text search, but fails to teach a structured search of specific criteria, a
database of real property listings, or a user sizable area of interest, we are
not convinced. See id. at 9—11. The Examiner relies on Hartz to teach the
database of real property listings, relies on Katzfey to teach the search
criteria, and further relies on Kabel to teach a user sizeable area of interest,
not Piekos. See Ans. 4—5; Final Act. 13—14 (citing Katzfey, Figs. 2, 7, 8,
col. 11,11. 32—67; Kabel, Fig. 4E, col. 5,1. 52—col. 6,1. 6). Similarly,
Appellant’s argument directed to Hartz failing to teach a user sizable area of
interest is not persuasive. See App. Br. 11—12. The Examiner relies on
Kabel to teach a user sizeable area of interest, not Hartz. See Ans. 4—5;
Final Act. 13—14 (citing Katzfey, Figs. 2, 7, 8, col. 11,11. 32—67; Kabel, Fig.
4E, col. 5,1. 52—col. 6,1. 6). Additionally, Appellant’s argument that
Katzfey fails to teach a user sizable area of interest and a simultaneous and
real time display of search results is not persuasive. See App. Br. 12—13.
The Examiner relies on Kabel to teach a user sizeable area of interest and
5
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
further relies on Piekos to teach real time simultaneous display without user
intervention in executing the search. See Ans. 6—7; Final Act. 15 (citing
Piekos 3, 9, 10, 60-62, and 71). Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because they address each of Hartz, Katzfey, Kabel, and Piekos
individually in relation to the claim elements at issue, where the Examiner
relies on the combination of Hartz, Katzfey, Kabel, and Piekos. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, regarding Appellant’s argument that Kabel has no bearing on
the present invention, we agree with the Examiner that Kabel is reasonably
pertinent to the problem Appellant is addressing, Specifically, Kabel is
pertinent to defining a user’s area of interest on a map which can then be
analyzed, and is thus properly relied upon as prior art. Kabel, Fig. 4E, col.
10,11. 3—15; See App. Br. 12; Ans. 5—6. “A reference is reasonably pertinent
if it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would
have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his
problem.” Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314,
1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Additionally, inasmuch as the Appellant’s arguments are directed to
the Examiner’s combination not teaching the search criteria “including some
or all of a geographical map of a general selected area presented in a map
window with a user-sizable area-of-interest within that map; location relative
to a selected point; rental fee; room(s); bathrooms, and utilities,” these
arguments are not persuasive also because the claim limitation in question is
6
Appeal 2017-004453
Application 12/209,718
recited in the alternative. App. Br., Claims Appendix A-l (Claim 1)
(emphasis added). The plain language of claim 1 specifies that the search
criteria includes “some or all” information and as such does not have to
include all of information recited in the claim. See In re Johnston, 435 F.3d
1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional
elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). As
discussed above, the Examiner finds that Katzfey and Hartz teach many of
the claimed search criteria, thus meeting the “some or all” limitation of
claim 1. Therefore, we do not need to find all of the search criteria to
sustain the Examiner’s rejection, though we do agree with the Examiner’s
findings for the search criteria.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection because, as discussed above, the Examiner finds that the
combination of Hartz, Katzfey, Kabel, and Piekos teaches the user
interactive real estate search system as claimed and we concur with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Appellant’s arguments directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 have not persuaded us of error,
and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1,3,5, and 6 as obvious
over Hartz, Katzfey, Kabel, and Piekos is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7