Ex Parte Binion et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14047279 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/047,279 10/07/2013
116886 7590 07/02/2018
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (State Farm)
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Todd Binion
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
32060/47619E 1088
EXAMINER
MCATEE,PATRICK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD BINION, KELLY S. MINTER,
HEIDI BROWN-McCREERY, MICHAEL HARRIS,
JEREMY MYERS, BRIAN FIELDS and JOE HARR
Appeal2017-001186
Application 14/047,279 1
Technology Center 3600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20, constituting all
claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a method for gathering and
analyzing condition related data." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below
with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for reporting residential
or commercial real estate property ownership information
compnsmg:
receiving, at a computing device via a computer network,
an enrollment from a customer, wherein the enrollment includes
information identifying a residential or commercial real property
owned by the customer;
retrieving existing condition data corresponding to the
residential or commercial real property from a condition
database, wherein the existing condition data is descriptive of a
prior operation of components of the residential or commercial
real property, the prior operation of the components occurring at
times prior to receiving the enrollment;
determining, by one or more processors, a first condition
of the residential or commercial real property, wherein
determining the first condition includes determining the first
condition based on the prior operation of the components of the
residential or commercial real property, wherein the prior
operation of the components is described in the existing
condition data, wherein the first condition of the residential or
commercial real property relates to one of a market value or
replacement cost value of the residential or commercial real
property and a quality level of the residential or commercial real
property;
after receiving the enrollment, gathering, via the computer
network, additional condition data corresponding to the
residential or commercial real property,
wherein the additional condition data indicates a
subsequent operation of the components of the residential
2
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
or commercial real property, the subsequent operation of
the components occurring after receiving the enrollment,
and
wherein at least some of the additional condition
data is generated, over a time period greater than a day, by
a device inside the residential or commercial real property
monitoring the subsequent operation of the components of
the residential or commercial real property;
determining, by the one or more processors, a second
condition of the residential or commercial real property based
on the subsequent operation of the components of the residential
or commercial real property, wherein the subsequent operation
of the components is indicated in the additional condition data,
wherein the second condition relates to the one of the market
value or the replacement cost value of the residential or
commercial real property and the quality level of the residential
or commercial real property, and wherein the second condition
indicates that at least one of the components of the residential or
commercial real property needs to be repaired or replaced;
generating, by the one or more processors, a property
ownership report, wherein the property ownership report
includes visual descriptors indicative of the first condition and
the second condition; and
communicating, via the computer network, the property
ownership report to a remote computing device for presentation
to the customer.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 stand provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1-20 in copending application 14/047,268. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Ans. 2.
Claims 1-9, 11, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2005/0154657 Al; published July
14, 2005) ("Kim"), Niccolini et al. (US 2010/0318451 A 1; published Dec.
16, 2010) ("Niccolini"), Holcombe (US 2004/0024483 Al; published Feb. 5,
2004), Osborn (US 2006/0253293 Al; published Nov. 9, 2006), Golden et
al. (US 2007 /0203860 Al; published Aug. 30, 2007) ("Golden"), and
Budike, Jr. (US 2007/0143046 Al; published June 21, 2007) ("Budike").
Ans. 2.
Claims 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Niccolini, Holcombe, and Budike.
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants do not address the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9,
11-17, 19, and 20 for nonstatutory double patenting. See MPEP § 1205.02
(2017) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in
the appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it."); see also Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to
present arguments on a particular issue - or more broadly, on a particular
rejection -the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.").
4
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
35 US.C. § 101 Rejection
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014),
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the first step, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The Examiner determines the claims are directed to "gathering
customer enrollment data and existing condition data (i.e., stored
information), and additional/subsequent condition data (i.e., new
information), and then comparing the existing and additional condition data
to generate a trend (i.e., comparing data to identify options) and
communicating the trend," which is similar to the abstract idea of comparing
new and stored information and using rules to perform the fundamental
economic practice of property appraisal. Final Act. 16-17, 58; see Ans. 3--4.
The Examiner further determines the claims are similar to those found to be
abstract in SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555
Fed. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Final Act. 16.
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's determinations. See App. Br.
14. We agree with the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed
to the fundamental economic practice of property appraisal, and in
particular, to gathering data, comparing the data to generate a trend, and
communicating the trend. See Final Act. 16-17, 58; Ans. 3--4.
In the second step of Alice, we "consider the elements of each claim
both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
5
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). In
other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept' - i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines the additional elements in the claims
amount to "no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a
computer and recitation of generic computer structure that performs generic
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known in the pertinent industry." Final Act. 17-18. The
Examiner further determines the claims "do not recite an improvement to
another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of
the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally
linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment." Final
Act. 18.
Appellants argue the claims "amount to 'significantly more' than the
alleged abstract idea, because the claims provide an improvement to the field
of appliance diagnostics" by "monitoring components ( e.g., kitchen
appliances, furnaces, washes, water pipes, gas lines, etc.) inside a real
property and identifying the components which need repair or replacement,
thereby improving the capabilities of a smart home." App. Br. 14 (citing
Spec. ,r 28). Specifically, Appellants contend the claimed invention
"improves upon conventional appliance diagnostics processes where
maintenance personnel performs inspections of an appliance at irregular
intervals." App. Br. 14--15 (citing Spec. ,r,r 32-33). Appellants further
6
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
argue the claimed invention identifies which components inside a real
property need to be repaired or replaced "with increased accuracy by
'analyzing granular data gathered from the property over time."' Reply Br.
2 ( citing Spec. ,r 33). According to Appellants, the claimed invention
"provides improvements over the manual process of inspecting an
appliance." Reply Br. 3 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 28, 35); see App. Br. 16.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. For the reasons set
forth by the Examiner, we agree the invention is not directed to the technical
field of "appliance diagnostics," and even if they were, that the claims do not
improve that technical field. See Ans. 5-7. We further agree with the
Examiner's findings that the problems being solved are not shown to be
technical in nature and could have been "addressed merely by increasing the
regularity, frequency, or both, or manual inspections to collect information
about the subsequent operation and condition of components on the
property." Ans. 6. Appellants' Specification describes "the techniques of
the present disclosure are able to provide an accurate assessment of property
condition by analyzing granular data gathered from the property over time."
Spec. ,r 33. The claimed invention, in light of the Specification, provides
techniques to improve speed and efficiency, including accuracy, of appliance
inspections. Rather than being necessarily rooted in the technology, the
claimed invention merely uses the technology "to achieve improvements to
speed and efficiency, which are known advantages when automating manual
tasks using generic computing equipment." Ans. 6-7.
Appellants further argue the claims are similar to those in Diamond v.
Diehr, 101 S. Ct. 1048 (1981 ), in that the "totality of the steps which act in
concert to improve appliance diagnostics are unconventional in the field."
7
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
App. Br. 16. According to Appellants, "using a device inside the real
property to monitor the operation of a component of the real property and
analyzing the data provided the device to identify that the component needs
to be repaired or replaced is unconventionaf' because "traditionally
maintenance personal record[ ed] measurements using equipment when
visiting the real property." App. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that any improvement is "tied up in either the data gathering step .
. . where gathering data over a network such as the Internet is well-
understood, routine, and conventional ... or in the abstract idea." Ans. 10.
See also Ans. 8-9. In Diehr, the Court held the claims to be patent eligible
despite the fact that several steps of the process use a mathematical
equipment, not because of it. See Diehr, 101 S. Ct. at 1055 ("claims involve
the transformation of an article, in this case raw, uncured synthetic rubber,
into a different state or thing," and "describe in detail a step-by-step method
for accomplishing such, beginning with the loading of a mold with raw,
uncured rubber and ending with the eventual opening of the press at the
conclusion of the cure," which is an industrial process of "the types which
have historically been eligible to receive the protection of our patent laws").
As set forth by the Examiner, while the "rubber curing equipment is central
to the invention" in Diehr, Appellants' claimed invention "recites little if
anything about the component monitoring devices." Ans. 9.
We further agree with the Examiner that this case is similar to Electric
Power, in which our reviewing court found the claims patent-ineligible
because "[t]he claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer,
network, or display components, or even a 'non-conventional and non-
8
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,' but merely calls for
performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display
functions 'on a set of generic computer components' and display devices."
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citing BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341, 1349-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Ans. 8-9. Similarly, the
claims in this case merely recite the use of generic computer components to
gather data ( computing device), analyze the data and generate a report ( one
or more processors), and communicate the report for presentation (remote
computing device). See Ans. 8 ( the claimed invention "involves monitoring
information of a property, analyzing the data, and displaying the results");
Ans. 8-9 (the claimed invention is "all about data gathering and data
analysis, which occurs the same regardless of what devices or components
are used to generate, transmit, or receive the data.").
Appellants further argue that the claims amount to significantly more
than the alleged abstract idea "because the claims recite a particular
machine." App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants contend the claimed device
used to generate additional condition data amounts to significantly more
than the alleged abstract idea "because a device which monitors the
subsequent operation of components of the residential or commercial
property is not found in a general purpose computer and is not merely
generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions." App.
Br. 17-18 ( citing Spec. ,r 27). Appellants argue the claims are more
analogous to those in Diamond v. Diehr than Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2014). App. Br. 18-19. According to Appellants, unlike in
9
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), the claimed invention cannot be
performed using mental steps by a human using pen and paper because the
claimed invention requires at least analog monitoring equipment, which is a
particular machine. App. Br. 19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants'
Specification describes "condition data, corresponding to the property
identified in the property enrollment, is retrieved from a property condition
database," and that "condition data may include data gathered from a variety
of sources, such as a data sources gathering data from the utilities 116 and
the appliances 118 and/ or data from the property market database." Spec.
,r 27. Examples of these data sources include "Wi-Fi enabled thermostats,
home automation system components ( e.g., temperature sensors, humidity
sensors, motion sensors, remote control electrical sockets, etc.), Wi-Fi
enabled home security systems, cameras, smart utility meters, etc." Id.
In light of Appellants' Specification describing data sources, we agree
with the Examiner that the claimed devices are "prior art smart home
devices used to gather data in the manner in which they were designed."
Ans. 12. Moreover, as discussed above, we do not find the claims to be
similar to those in Diehr. Rather, we agree with the Examiner the claims are
similar to those in Content Extraction & Transmission ( CET), in that though
the claimed devices are not equivalent to a generic computer, they are
technologies used "for their routine and expected function," which "was
considered to be a well-understood and conventional use that lacked an
inventive concept." Ans. 11 (citing CET); see Ans. 12. As set forth by the
Examiner, using known smart home devices for their intended purposes, "in
an expected combination with other devices such as a computer to organize,
10
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
store, and analyze the data output by the smart home devices, is not
inventive because it is an expected and conventional combination of
elements according to their intended purposes." Id.
Moreover, with regard to Appellants' argument that claimed invention
requires a particular machine to monitor equipment ( e.g., a device inside the
real property that monitors for condition data), the Federal Circuit has held
that mental processes or activities capable of being performed by a person
( e.g., collecting data about a property to determine property conditions from
the data and generating a condition report of the property) remain
unpatentable even when automated through the use of the computer (e.g.,
devices monitoring for condition data, and processors to determine
conditions and generate a condition report). See CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely
mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer,
was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.").
Appellants argue the claimed invention automates a manual process
but does so in a patent eligible way because "the process required by the
claims is different than the manual process." Reply Br. 3 (citing AfcRO, Inc.
v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
According to Appellants, the claimed computer is "employed to perform a
distinct process to automate a task previously perfonned by humans" but is
different from the rnanual process because "maintenance personnel's
analysis is 'driven by subjective detenninations rather than specific, limited
mathematical nil es."' Reply Br. 3.
\Ve are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. In McRO, the
claimed improvement was "allowing computers to produce 'accurate and
11
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters'
that previously could only be produced by human animators ... through 'the
use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph weights and transitions
between phonemes."' McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. Further, in McRO, the
claims were defined in a specific way to solve the problem automating tasks
that previously were not automated because they were driven by subjective
determinations, rather than specific mathematical rules. Id. at 1314. The
existing technological process was improved by the incorporation of the
claimed rules to allow automation of further tasks. Id. Here, by contrast,
Appellants' claimed invention is not defined in a specific way to solve the
problem; rather, the claims combine ( or concurrently perform) steps ( devices
monitoring for condition data, and the computer gathering condition data to
determine condition and generate a condition report) that were previously
performed in conventional methods (gathering condition data, analyzing the
data to determine property condition and generate a condition report). See
Spec. ,r,r 32-33.
In an example scenario, the claimed invention retrieves "water
consumption data, thermostat data, energy consumption data, and furnace
intake data from the condition database" and analyzes all of the intake data
"to provide an accurate assessment of property condition." Spec. ,r,r 32-33.
The claimed invention, in light of the Specification, merely provides
accuracy of property condition assessment by making it easier to analyze all
of the intake data at once ( e.g., using computers), improving the speed and
efficiency from a human ( e.g., owner or maintenance personnel) who
analyzes the intake data (e.g., conventional methods employed by humans).
See Spec. ,r 33. Furthermore, despite Appellants' contention that the claims
12
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
are directed to improve the manual process of inspecting appliances because
the manual process is based on irregular testing while the computerized
process is based on regular testing, the claims do not require any regular
scheduling of testing. Instead, the claimed invention only requires the
condition data is generated "over a time period greater than a day."
Furthermore, even if the claims required regularity and frequency of testing,
"neither the frequency nor regularity of the data collection is necessarily
rooted in a particular technology, and could be performed as manual
activity." Ans. 8-9.
The claims, when viewed as a whole, perform conventional
processing functions (receiving, analyzing, and displaying data) that courts
have routinely found insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more
than an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer -
which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20.
35 US.C. § 103 Rejections
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kim,
Niccolini, Holcombe, Osborn, Golden, and Budike teaches or suggests
"wherein the second condition indicates that at least one of the components
of the residential or commercial real property needs to be repaired or
replaced," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 12 and 1 7?
13
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
Appellants contend Budike's determination that "the system's
operation is outside of acceptable limits" does not teach "that a component
of the real property needs to be repaired or replaced." App. Br. 23; see
Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds the claimed component of the real property
"includes a furnace, which is part of HV AC, and thus the HV AC system is
reasonably construed as a 'component' of the real property." Ans. 14 (citing
Spec. ,r 3). As a result, the Examiner finds Budike teaches an indication that
at least one of the components of the real property needs to be repaired or
replaced. Final Act. 33 (citing Budike Fig. 28 and ,r 78).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments.
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 14), Appellants' Specification describes
"components of the property will need to be replaced (e.g., furnace, water
heater, refrigerator, garage door opener, etc.)." Spec. ,r 3. As further cited
by the Examiner (Final Act. 33), Budike teaches "using suitable HVAC
equipment performance and operating sensor ... provide a warning or alarm
if the systems operation should go out of acceptable limits" and "[ r ]epair
activity would [be] activated." Budike ,r 78. Budike further describes the
benefits of "low-priced proactive repair rather than costly reactive service"
and "cost-effective dispatch identifying component malfunction." Budike
Fig. 28. In other words, Budike teaches providing warning or alarm if an
HV AC system goes outside of acceptable operations limits and providing
dispatch to identify HV AC component malfunctions.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed indication that a component of the residential or commercial real
property needs to be repaired or replaced, encompassing indications that a
14
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
furnace or HV AC of the real property needs to be repaired or replaced,
precludes Budike' s warning or alarm and subsequent dispatch when an
HV AC system is outside acceptable limits and is malfunctioning.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in combining Kim and Holcombe?
The Examiner finds Kim teaches retrieving information about a
property from other sources, and it is reasonable to modify Kim to also
retrieve information about the condition of a property to identify trends in
the condition of the property. Ans. 17 (citing Kim ,r 33).
Appellants contend combining Kim and Holcombe would "change the
basic principle under which Kim was designed to operate (to provide an
estimated property valuation after receiving user input at a series of guided
interfaces)." App. Br. 24. Specifically, Appellants argue combining Kim
with Holcombe would transform "the guided interface process in Kim to
include at least a one day waiting period for generating additional condition
data." App. Br. 24. Appellants contend transforming the guided intervals of
Kim to include at least a one day waiting period is impractical and "would
defeat the purpose of navigating through a series of guided interfaces to
reach" the result of "estimated property valuation." Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 21 ), Kim describes "the comparable property data is
also available from the remote databases and is periodically (e.g., nightly)
downloaded, 'cleaned,' and stored in the appraisal system database 112."
Kim ,r 33. In other words, in addition to teaching the data is responsive to
user requests, Kim teaches the property information can be downloaded and
stored in the database periodically. Adding a one day waiting period by
15
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
modifying Kim with Holcombe would not change the principle of Kim's
operation because Kim can already operate on a periodic schedule that is not
in immediate response to user input.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kim,
Niccolini, Holcombe, Osborn, Golden, and Budike teaches or suggests
"determining ... a second condition of the residential or commercial real
property based on the subsequent operation of the components of the
residential or commercial real property ... wherein the second condition
relates to the one of the market value or the replacement cost value of the
residential or commercial real property and the quality level of the
residential or commercial real property," as recited in independent claim 1
and commensurately recited in independent claims 12 and 17?
Appellants contend Niccolini determines a value of a property as a
whole, but that Niccolini's "value is not determined based on the operation
of the components of the property," and one of ordinary skill in the art
"would not combine a reference for determining a condition of a real
property based on the subsequent operation of its components (Golden) with
a reference directed to valuing a property as a whole based on the property's
ranking within a market (Niccolini) to arrive at the claimed element." App.
Br. 27.
Appellants' argument against Niccolini separately from Golden does
not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
16
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425
(CCPA 1981).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Golden teaches conditions
based on the operations of components (Final Act. 32 (citing Golden ,r 23)),
and Niccolini teaches conditions relating to market value or replacement
cost value and quality of the real property (Final Act. 25 ( citing Niccolini
,r,r 31, 32, 34, 35)). The Examiner finds it would be obvious to combine
Niccolini with the cited prior art references to incorporate data into
valuation. Ans. 19; see Final Act. 26 ("The system therefore seems
sufficiently capable of incorporating information from any source data that
can be quantified to the extent necessary to be incorporated into the
valuation and trend models."). As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 25),
Niccolini describes "the present invention may incorporate multiple data
sources" that "may include broker price options, actual appraisals, and
populations of individual property valuations and estimates" including
"market estimates and other tracking indexes." Niccolini ,r 34 (emphasis
added).
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed condition of the real property based on the subsequent operation
of the components of the real property relating to market value and quality
level of the real property precludes Niccolini's conditions relating to value
of property based on data from multiple sources (i.e., operations) relating to
market value combined with Golden's condition data relating to component
operations.
17
Appeal 2017-001186
Application 14/047,279
For the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 12 and
17 and dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20, not argued separately.
See App. Br. 27-28.
DECISION
The Examiner's nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-
9, 11-17, 19, and 20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11-17, 19,
and 20 is affirmed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-9, 11-17, 19,
and 20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18