Ex Parte WoodDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 14, 201511852846 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation