Ex Parte Wood

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2015

11852931 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW WOOD
____________

Appeal 2012-008082
Application 11/852,9311
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 1–24. 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 2012-008082
Application 11/852,931

2
Related Appeals and Interferences
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(ii) requires Appellant in its Appeal Brief to
provide, “A statement identifying . . . all other prior and pending appeals . . .
which . . .may be related to . . . or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in
the pending appeal . . .” (emphasis added).
In this case, Appellant provides the following statement in its Appeal
Brief: “Applicant asserts that no other appeals or interferences are known to
the Applicant, the Applicant's legal representative, or assignee which will
directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board's
decision in the pending appeal.” App. Br. 4.
The Examiner, however, provides a contrary statement in the Answer:
The following are the related appeals, interferences, and
judicial proceedings known to the examiner which may be
related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a
bearing on the Board's decision in the pending appeal:
Copending Application 12/054327, Appeal No. 2011-
013303;
Copending Application 11/852846 and 11/852891 which
have concurrently filed Appeal Briefs, 23 and 30 January 2012,
respectively.
Ans. 3.
We have examined the files for the appeals noted by the Examiner,
including this one, namely 2011-013303 (12/054,327), 2012-008060
(11/852,846), 2012-008040 (11/852,891), and 2012-008082 (11/852,931).
Each of these appeals involve the same applicant, the same or remarkably
similar specifications and drawings (several of which were filed on the same
day), the same real party in interest, the same law firm and the same
Appeal 2012-008082
Application 11/852,931

3
attorney. Given these circumstances and our review of the files, Appellant’s
statement in this appeal pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 is at best, erroneous.
Invention
Appellant’s invention involves generating quantity takeoff data from
computer aided design (CAD) drawings. Spec. 1.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 reads as follows with key limitations emphasized:
1. A method for generating quantity takeoff data for a
computer-aided design (CAD) drawing, the method comprising:
parsing the CAD drawing to identify instances of one or
more drawing objects in the CAD drawing;
retrieving a collection of takeoff objects, wherein each
takeoff object is configured to store a quantify type, a quantify
property, and cost data used to generate a cost estimate for a
specified drawing object, and wherein each takeoff object is
associated with a takeoff category that is associated with one or
more additional takeoff objects according to data stored in a
database;
matching of a first drawing object in the CAD drawing
with a takeoff object in the collection of takeoff objects;
generating, for the first drawing object, from the values
for the quantify type and the quantify property stored in the
matched takeoff object, a takeoff quantity for all instances of
the first drawing object in the CAD drawing;
computing, from the takeoff quantity and the cost data,
the cost estimate for all instances of the first drawing object;
generating a hierarchical takeoff report based on the
first takeoff object, wherein the hierarchical takeoff report
displays, as sub-elements to the takeoff category associated
with the first takeoff object, the values for the quantify type, the
quantify property, the cost data and the cost estimate for all
instances of the first drawing object.

Appeal 2012-008082
Application 11/852,931

4
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 1–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
by Jung.
ISSUE
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding Jung describes “each takeoff object is associated
with a takeoff category that is associated with one or more additional takeoff
objects according to data stored in a database” and “generating a hierarchical
takeoff report based on the first takeoff object, wherein the hierarchical
takeoff report displays, as sub-elements to the takeoff category associated
with the first takeoff object, the values for the quantify type, the quantify
property, the cost data and the cost estimate for all instances of the first
drawing object” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Jung discloses wherein each takeoff object is
associated with a takeoff category that is associated with one or more
additional takeoff objects according to data stored in a database. Ans. 4.
The Examiner explains Jung shows a take-off list of specific categories such
as "WALL", "FLOOR", "CEILING" which represent takeoff categories and
each category contains specific take off objects such as "DELUXE TILE",
"MOLDING", and "STEEL FRAME" where each element is associated with
Appeal 2012-008082
Application 11/852,931

5
information in a design project information database and material cost
database. Id. (citing Jung Fig. 5 and para. 36).
The Examiner also finds Jung discloses generating a hierarchical
takeoff report based on the first takeoff object, wherein the hierarchical
takeoff report displays, as sub-elements to the takeoff category associated
with the first takeoff object, the values for the quantify type, the quantify
property, the cost data and the cost estimate for all instances of the first
drawing object. Ans. 5. The Examiner explains the takeoff sheet of Jung
corresponds to the takeoff report of the claims, and the costs for an object
include unit cost and a cost estimate. Id. (citing Jung para. 14 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. 14. Appellant argues these
entries are instead specific components that make up the room named
“Office-4”. Id.
Appellant also argues Jung does not disclose each sub-element of a
take-off category as an instance of a selected drawing object and Jung’s
takeoff sheet fails to disclose values for each identified instance of a selected
drawing object. App. Br. 16.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner Jung discloses
the recited takeoff categories where, for example in Fig 5, Jung shows
specific categories such as “wall”, “floor”, and “ceiling” and each category
contains specific take-off objects such as “deluxe tile”, “molding”, and
“steel frame”. Ans. 20. We also agree with the Examiner Jung describes
segmentation into categories such as bill of finishing materials, bill of frame
Appeal 2012-008082
Application 11/852,931

6
materials, and bill of electric materials which further represent segmenting
distinct takeoff objects into distinct takeoff categories. Id. (citing 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 ... ". Ans. 21 (bolding and
underlining omitted) (citing Jung para. 124). In describing Fig. 5, Jung
further discloses such instances where 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).

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 9 and 17, which recite similar
limitations, as well as dependent claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–24, which were
not separately argued.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
Appeal 2012-008082
Application 11/852,931

7

AFFIRMED

msc