Ex Parte Deane et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2012

10449258 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2012)

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.
10/449,258 05/30/2003 Beverly Floyd Deane 109.0033 7244
27997 7590 05/22/2012
LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC
5015 SOUTHPARK DRIVE
SUITE 230
DURHAM, NC 27713-7736
EXAMINER
WEIS, SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte BEVERLY FLOYD DEANE, 8
KAREN YANDLE CARPENTER, 9
ALLISON NICOLE POPE, 10
JILL ALESE CLEARY, 11
ROBERT CHRIS KRAUSE, 12
and DANIEL EARL WILLIAMSON 13
___________ 14
15
Appeal 2011-000779 16
Application 10/449,258 17
Technology Center 3600 18
___________ 19
20
21
Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and 22
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. 23
24
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 25
26
27
DECISION ON APPEAL28
29
30
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Beverly Floyd Deane, Karen Yandle Carpenter, Allison Nicole Pope, Jill 2
Alese Cleary, Robert Chris Krause, and Daniel Earl Williamson (Appellants) 3
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-20, 4
the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction 5
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 6
The Appellants invented a way of automating the computation of bids 7
for mortgage foreclosure sales by electronic transmission of foreclosure sale 8
bid instructions using a publicly accessible data transmission network such 9
as the Internet while providing security to prevent unauthorized access to 10
private data (Spec. ¶ 0001). 11
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 12
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 13
paragraphing added]. 14
1. A system 15
for computing and presenting a foreclosure bid 16
on behalf of a holder of a secured loan 17
at a foreclosure sale of property 18
securing the secured loan, 19
comprising: 20
[1] a foreclosure bid information database 21
receiving, storing and maintaining foreclosure bid 22
information 23
applicable to foreclosure sales of property, 24
the foreclosure bid information 25
being relevant to determination of a foreclosure 26
bid likely to yield maximum net proceeds from the 27
sale of the property 28

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed January 19, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 12,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 11, 2010).
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

3

and 1
including information relating to the rules and laws 2
of plural jurisdictions that govern foreclosure 3
bidding 4
and 5
[2] a foreclosure bid manager 6
accessible to a user through a publicly available data 7
processing network, 8
the foreclosure bid manager computing foreclosure bid 9
information for a user 10
for preparation of a bid 11
that may be entered on behalf of the holder of the 12
secured loan, 13
the foreclosure bid manager receiving inputs from a user 14
relating to a property for which a foreclosure sale 15
is to be held 16
and 17
employing information 18
submitted by the user 19
and 20
stored in the foreclosure bid 21
information database 22
to compute an appropriate bid for the 23
property, 24
to compile a set of bid instructions 25
consistent with the rules and laws which are 26
applicable thereto 27
and 28
including a minimum price to allow for the 29
property, 30
the minimum price being a price calculated 31
to yield maximum net proceeds from the 32
property, 33
and 34
to present the bid instructions to the user. 35
36
37
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

4

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 1
Weiss US 2002/0035520 A1 Mar. 21, 2002
Deane US 2004/0243507 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Camin US 7,379,912 B1 May 27, 2008
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 2
unpatentable over Weiss and Admitted Prior Art.2 3
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 4
unpatentable over Weiss, Camin, and Admitted Prior Art. 5
ISSUES 6
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on the breadth of the term 7
“bid” in claims 1 and 10 and whether the art describes the processing recited 8
in claims 2 and 11. 9
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 10
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 11
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 12
Facts Related to the Prior Art 13
Weiss 14
01. Weiss is directed to a core property valuation system and a set of 15
modular functionality that makes use of corresponding property 16
valuations to generate property value related information or 17
perform property value related functions. Weiss ¶ 0022. 18
02. Weiss uses a property guaranteed valuation (PGV) system for the 19
wrapping of a guarantee or insurance policy around a forecasted 20
default valuation (DV) for a subject property. The DV is a low 21

2 Claims 4-9 and 13-18 depend from claims 2 and 11, so the rejection as to
these claims should be based on Camin as well.
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

5

end valuation of the subject property, for example the sale price of 1
the subject property at foreclosure or auction. Forecasted 2
valuations and DVs are determined for one or more points in time 3
and are useful, for example, to potential lenders or mortgage 4
companies and are also useful to client buyers and sellers for 5
determining a worst case sale price of a subject property, any of 6
which may be beneficiaries of a guarantee. Weiss ¶ 0056. 7
03. A DV is the estimated value of the property if sold at foreclosure 8
at a given point of time, or within a given period of time. The DV 9
may be determined in any of a variety of manners using, for 10
example, math modeling or statistical analysis techniques known 11
to those skilled in the art. For example, a current DV may be 12
determined or estimated by DV manager 1312 using past 13
foreclosure comparable sales data and comparing that data to 14
automated property valuations for the same subject properties. 15
Forecast manager 1322 may then forecast DVs for the guarantee 16
period, or for one or more points of time therein. That is, DV 17
manager 1312 may task forecast manager 1322 to forecast DVs 18
using a set of algorithms that analyze and estimate the likely DVs 19
in a given market, at a given point in time for that type (e.g., 20
single family home, and so on) of property when sold at default 21
(e.g., such as at auction). Preferably, but not essentially, the DV is 22
determined as a function of the property valuation, such that the 23
DV is discounted from the estimated automated valuation (at a 24
given point in time). Weiss ¶ 0344. 25
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

6

04. The DV manager determines or accesses one or more default 1
correction factors, to be applied to property valuations. A default 2
correction factor may be determined by looking at historical data 3
on past foreclosure sales for homes similar to the subject property 4
in that geographic area and comparing those foreclosure sale 5
prices to the retrospective automated property valuations as of the 6
time of the foreclosure sales. The DV manager may derive a 7
constant default correction factor, so, forecasted property 8
valuations could always be multiplied by that factor to arrive at a 9
forecasted DV at that point in time that relates to the forecasted 10
property valuation. As a variation, a default correction factor may 11
be defined for each property type (i.e., single family homes, 12
condominiums, or cooperatives, non-residential) and/or for each 13
market, market segment, or market type (e.g., urban, suburban). 14
Weiss ¶ 0345. 15
ANALYSIS 16
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 17
appellants' brief painstakingly analyzes the 356 plus paragraphs 18
of Weiss to demonstrate that the forecasted default valuation 19
(DV) which "is preferably the estimated value of the property if 20
sold at foreclosure at a given point of time, or within a given 21
period of time" as defined by Weiss is not "a foreclosure bid on 22
behalf of a holder of a secured loan at a foreclosure sale of 23
property securing the secured loan" as required by claim 1. 24
Reply Br. 2. This argument is in the context of the argument that 25
“[a]n actual foreclosure bid must factor in the reality of the current market as 26
opposed to a forecast” at Appeal Brief 12. Claim 1 recites “the foreclosure 27
bid manager computing foreclosure bid information for a user for 28
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

7

preparation of a bid that may be entered on behalf of the holder of the 1
secured loan.” 2
Claim 1 recites nothing regarding what particular data is used, when 3
that data is collected, or how the bid is computed. The phrase “for 4
preparation of a bid that may be entered on behalf of the holder of the 5
secured loan” is purely aspirational, as no steps in the claim actually prepare 6
that bid. The same is true of the phrase “presenting a foreclosure bid on 7
behalf of a holder of a secured loan at a foreclosure sale of property securing 8
the secured loan” in the claim’s preamble. Weiss computes a value that 9
could be used for a foreclosure bid. Such a value clearly is “bid information 10
for a user” that may be used “for preparation of a bid that may be entered on 11
behalf of the holder of the secured loan.” This is all that is required to be 12
within the scope of claim 1. 13
Appellants argue a distinction between a foreclosure value and a 14
foreclosure bid. Reply Br. 3. We find no lexicographic definition in the 15
Specification for the phrase “foreclosure bid.” The very first instance of the 16
phrase in the Specification at ¶ 0004 is “[t]he foreclosure bid by the 17
servicing entity should be calculated …” which demonstrates that the 18
Specification treats such a bid as a calculated value rather than a formal 19
document. Again, Weiss clearly computes such a value. Whether Weiss 20
computes it as Appellants would see fit is not pertinent so long as those 21
details are not part of the claims’ narrowing limitations. 22
While Appellants argue that claim 1 recites “the minimum price being a 23
price calculated to yield maximum net proceeds from the property” (Reply 24
Br. 3), as the Examiner found, this is again merely aspirational, and more to 25
the point, any limitation is one gauged by human perception and judgment 26
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

8

alone, which is given no patentable weight. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 2
Claim 10 is essentially similar to claim 1. Claims 19 and 20 3
depending from claim 10 are not argued separately. 4
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the art fails to 5
describe that the foreclosure bid manager retrieves loan and delinquency 6
information for a loan associated with a particular mortgage insurance 7
certificate number in claims 2 and 11. Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner found 8
that the database elements cited were described by Camin, but made no 9
findings as to the processing further recited in these claims. 10
The remaining claims depend from either claim 2 or 11. 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12
The rejection of claims 1, 10, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 13
unpatentable over Weiss and Admitted Prior Art is proper. 14
The rejection of claims 4-9, and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 15
unpatentable over Weiss and Admitted Prior Art is improper. 16
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 17
unpatentable over Weiss, Camin, and Admitted Prior Art is improper. 18
DECISION 19
The rejection of claims 1, 10, 19, and 20 is affirmed. 20
The rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-18 is reversed. 21
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 22
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 23
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). 24
25
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 26
27
Appeal 2011-000779
Application 10/449,258

9

1
hh 2