Ex Parte Olefson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2005

08664164 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2005)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent on the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________
Ex parte Shari P. Olefson
______________
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
______________
ON BRIEF
______________
Before PATE, MCQUADE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, 19-28, and 30-
37. These are the only claims in the application. Claims 2, 14, 18, and 29 were
cancelled in Paper No. 9.
The claimed invention is directed to a method for viewing real estate properties.
The method allows the user to select real estate properties based upon entered criteria.
With a terminal, the user can view rotational panoramic images of the properties and
display additional panoramic visual images in response to a change perspective
command. Thus, the user can go on a “tour” of real estate property without physically
visiting the property. The method includes displaying a floor plan of the selected home
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
2
and an arrow corresponding to the virtual location and perspective of the user inside the
home. When the user has selected a house, the method calculates estimated monthly
payments based upon the user’s inputs.
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Hansen 5,442,456 Aug. 15, 1995
Ritchey 5,495,576 Feb. 27, 1996
Keithley et al. (Keithley) 5,584,025 Dec. 10, 1996
Berger, W. “Future Quest: Go Where No Real Estate Company Has Gone Before” Real
Estate Today, vol. 27, n.1, (Jan, 1994) p14(5).
Waring, R. “Doom Totally Unauthorized Tips & Secrets” Brady Publishing, 1994
Giobbe, D. “Unusual Alliances Bring Ad Dollars to Newspapers” Editor & Publisher, vol.
127, n. 33 (Aug. 13, 1994) p.26(1).
Kim, “Sundance Homes- Company Report” Kidder, Peabody & Company, Inc., (Jan. 31,
1994) p. 1-3.
The rejections
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being obvious over Keithley in view of Hansen or Ritchey.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-26, 28 and 30-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Keithley in view of Berger and further in view of Doom.
Claims 10 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being obvious over
Keithley in view of Berger, Doom, Giobbe, and Kim.
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
3
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer, appellant’s specification, and
Appeal brief for the full details of the rejections and the appellant’s response thereto.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the arguments of the appellant and the examiner.
As a result of this review, we have reached the conclusion that the applied prior art
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to all the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of the claims on appeal. Our reasons follow.
Turning first to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37 which stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Keithley in view of Hansen, these claims
recite a method where 360 degree rotational panoramic images are recorded and
stored in a central database. The user can enter selection criteria and display rotational
panoramic images for each property through the use of a terminal. An audio
accompaniment can be recorded and played for each property. The centralized
computer stores and matches entered user identification and passwords.
We find that Keithley teaches a method for recording and storing digitized
property information in a central database. The Keithley method provides the user with
a terminal for communicating with the database. A centralized computer stores and
matches entered user identification. The user enters criteria and matching properties
are displayed. Digitized pictures of the property are provided. Keithley also discusses
viewing digitized pictures while listening to detailed property descriptions. With the
exception of using 360-degree rotational panoramic visual images, we find that the
Keithley reference teaches the elements of claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37. The
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
4
examiner uses Hansen as a secondary reference that teaches the use of 360-degree
rotational panoramic visual images.
The appellant argues that Hansen does not teach rotational panoramic images,
but instead focuses on the generation of multi-level interactive environments. Appeal
brief, page 7. Although Hansen teaches creating one navigable video environment
inside another, the appellant’s claims define a similar virtual environment. Appellant’s
specification describes navigating through a home, entering commands, and changing
perspectives from the kitchen to the living room. Specification, pages 14-16. The
kitchen and living room are navigable environments inside the navigable environment of
the home. Also, in the appellant’s view, Hansen uses computer generated art and
renderings to give the impression of “being there,” but does not use actual or real-life
photographic images. Appeal brief, page 7. We disagree. Hansen teaches a method
by which a video camera on a tripod is rotated in a full circle around an actual travel
agency. Col. 5, line 7, lines 34-45. The result is 60 video images spanning 360
degrees, thereby generating a 360-degree rotational panoramic visual image. Col. 5,
lines 45-48.
Further, appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion to combine
Keithley and Hansen. Appeal brief, page 9. However, Keithley suggests the use of
virtual reality devices with reference to how the properties are viewed. Col. 9, lines 64-
66 and Col. 12, lines 40-50. We agree with the examiner that, [G]iven the suggestion of
using virtual reality technologies to enhance viewing of properties, one would [naturally]
look to the virtual reality arts.” Examiner’s answer, page 10. In the virtual reality arts,
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
5
Hansen teaches generating a navigable environment inside a travel agency. It would
have been obvious to also employ a navigable environment inside a house, since
Keithley suggests providing enhanced viewing of properties through the use of virtual
reality and display technologies.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Keithley and Hansen would
result in computer-generated art depicting a home environment. Appeal brief, page 9.
As stated earlier, Hansen teaches the generation and recording of real life video
images. Col. 5, line 7. Thus the combination of Keithley and Hansen results in the
generation of real images. Also, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or
all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). “Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. In this case, Keithley directly
suggests the use of virtual reality technology.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-26, 28, and 30-37, we
also affirm the rejection of these claims as being obvious over Keithley in view of Berger
and further in view of Doom. In addition to covering the same subject matter as claims
1, 5-6, 8-9, 34-35, and 37, claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-26, 28, and 30-37 recite using
a map or floor plan as a graphical representation of the property. Also, the claims recite
using an arrow as a perspective indicator and using perspective commands such as “go
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
6
to kitchen.” The examiner uses Berger and Doom as secondary references to show this
subject matter of the claims.
The appellant argues that Berger is not a proper reference because it is
speculative that it teaches “what could be as opposed to what is.” Appeal brief, pages
9-10. We disagree. Although the Berger reference does discuss future technologies, it
also discusses the current state of the art. The Berger reference asserts that “[s]ome
high tech offices already use computerized mapping and interactive video tours of
houses.” The reference explains that rotating a video camera on a tripod and capturing
views from every angle can create a seamless mosaic or panoramic visual image of the
interior of a house. Thus, the Berger reference discusses the current state of the art.
With regards to Doom, appellant argues that Doom is nonanalogous art and
therefore is not a proper secondary reference. Appeal brief, page 10. Appellant
explains that her problem is directed to showing real estate property, whereas Doom is
a computer game. Appeal brief, pages 10-11. We find that Doom teaches a method for
navigating through a multi-level environment using a map and perspective indicator.
Keithley teaches the use of virtual reality to aid in showing a house and Berger teaches
the use of a virtual tour where the viewer can control what is shown. Since Doom is
directed to the problem of navigating a virtual reality environment, it is directed to the
problem to which appellant’s invention pertains.
With respect to claim 37, appellant argues that the hardware used in Doom does
not meet the limitations of claim 37. Appeal brief, page 14. The appellant’s
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
7
specification teaches that a computer monitor and mouse or keyboard could be used for
viewer input. Specification, pages 14-15. Likewise, Doom is a computer game that
uses a computer monitor and mouse or keyboard for input.
We agree with the examiner that claims 10 and 27 are obvious over Keithley in
view of Berger, Doom, Giobbe, and Kim. Claims 10 and 27 recite a method where the
user inputs financial information and a monthly mortgage payment for the real estate
property is calculated.
Appellant argues that Giobbe discusses the coupling of advertising medium for
real estate. Appeal brief, page 14. Although Giobbe does discuss the coupling of
advertising mediums, it also discusses the use of an online mortgage calculator
associated with a search of real estate listings. See page 26. Next, appellant argues
that Kim teaches the calculation of mortgage payments associated with Sundance
Homes, which has nothing to do with appellant’s claimed invention. Appeal brief, page
14. However, Kim is cited to show an example of using down payment, purchase price,
and interest rate to find the mortgage rate. Page 2. Keithley, discusses using a
mortgage qualification program. Col. 3, lines 11-20, col. 7, lines 7-17, col. 10, lines 15-
25. Berger and Giobbe discuss using mortgage calculators along with property listings.
Berger, page 17. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine Kim with Giobbe,
Berger, and Keithley to obtain the advantages of financial qualification programs along
with property listings as discussed in the references.
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
8
For the reasons outlined above, it is our conclusion that the applied prior art
establishes a case of prima facie obviousness of the claims that has not been rebutted
by appellant. Therefore, the rejections of all claims on appeal are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN P. MCQUADE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP/lbg
Appeal No. 2004-1929
Application No. 08/664,164
9
GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE
& CITKOWSKI, P.C.
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021