Ex Parte WOOD

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2015

11852846 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW WOOD
____________

Appeal 2012-008060
Application 11/852,8461
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and 19–24. No other claims are pending. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Autodesk, Inc. App. Br. 3.

Appeal 2012-008060
Application 11/852,846

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention involves methods for semi-automatic quantity
takeoff from computer aided design (CAD) drawings. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 reads as follows with key limitations emphasized:
1. A method for generating cost estimates from a computer-
aided-design (CAD) drawing that represents a design project,
the method comprising:
receiving a selection of an instance of a drawing object in
the CAD drawing;
generating, for the selected drawing object, a takeoff
object, wherein the takeoff object is configured to store a
quantify type, a quantify property, and cost data used to
generate a cost estimate for the design project based on
instances of the selected drawing object in the CAD drawing;
receiving values for each of the quantify type, the
quantify property, and the cost data;
receiving a selection of a takeoff category to be
associated with the takeoff object, wherein the takeoff category
is associated with one or more additional takeoff objects
according to data stored in a database;
parsing the CAD drawing to identify the instances of the
selected drawing object;
quantifying, based on the values for the quantify type and
the quantify property, a takeoff quantity for the identified
instances of the selected drawing object;
computing, from the takeoff quantity and the cost data, a
cost estimate for the instances of the selected drawing object;
storing the values for the quantify type, the quantify
property, and the cost data in the takeoff object; and
generating a hierarchical takeoff report based on the
takeoff object, wherein the hierarchical takeoff report displays,
as sub-elements to the takeoff category, the values for the
quantify type, the quantify property, the cost data and the cost
estimate for each of the identified instances of the selected
drawing object.

Appeal 2012-008060
Application 11/852,846

3
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims.
Jung US 2001/0037190 A1 Nov. 1, 2001

Rejections
Claims 1–2, 5-9, 12–16, and 19–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as being anticipated by Jung.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
because Jung does not disclose generating a hierarchical takeoff report based
on a takeoff object, wherein the hierarchical takeoff report displays, as sub-
elements to a takeoff category, values for the quantify type, the quantify
property, the cost data and the cost estimate for each of the identified
instances of a selected drawing object as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Jung discloses generating a hierarchical takeoff
report based on a takeoff object, wherein the hierarchical takeoff report
displays, as sub-elements to the takeoff category, the values for the quantify
type, the quantify property, the cost data and the cost estimate for each of the
identified instances of the selected drawing object. Ans. 5, 6; citing Jung
paras. 14, 124, and Fig 5.
Appellant argues the entries in Jung Fig 5 are associated with specific
unit, quantity and takeoff values and, therefore, are not takeoff categories as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 16. Appellant also argues Jung’s takeoff
Appeal 2012-008060
Application 11/852,846

4
sheet fails to disclose values for each identified instance of the selected
drawing object. App. Br. 18.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments. They are not
persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner Jung discloses
the recited takeoff categories where, for example in Fig 5, Jung shows
specific categories segmented into wall and floor/ceiling and in the recitation
of elements of the rows which are categorized based on the wall, floor, and
ceiling. See also, Jung paras. 36, 55.
We also agree with the Examiner Jung discloses the recited values for
each instance of a selected drawing object where Jung describes a "take-off
sheet of a bill of materials including quantities, take-off formulas, and costs
for each building element and item name with reference to a bill of materials
and cost for an object in the CAD drawing ... " (Jung para. 124 emphasis
added) and in describing Fig 5, a “detail take-off sheet is created for each
room having its room name and room code in the corresponding project, and
it displays the room shape, planimeter, name, specification, unit and yield,
estimation formula, and unit cost for each building element (Jung para. 67,
emphasis added). Ans. 16.
CONCLUSION
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding Jung discloses the
key limitations discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar
limitations, as well as dependent claims 2, 5–7, 9, 12–14, 16, and 19–24,
which were not separately argued.

Appeal 2012-008060
Application 11/852,846

5
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–9, 12–16, and
19–24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED

lp