Ex Parte Modi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2010

10677037 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MANOJ MODI
____________

Appeal 2009-005179
Application 10/677,037
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005179
Application 10/677,037

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4 and 9-27, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a computer network 10 (Fig. 1) that
uses a central database 48 to manage a portfolio of real property holdings.
The real property information is stored on the central database and organized
into a plurality of information categories. Abstract.
Each property is assigned a unique property identification number and
has a set of related records that deal with specific attributes under a given
category of information. For example, an “Infrastructure” category record
52 (Fig. 4) associated with the unique property identification number
provides information related to square footage, acreage, detailed
photographs of the property, rooms, layout, type of roof, etc. See Spec. ¶¶
[00025] - [00028].

Representative Claim
1. A method of accessing real property information
for display on a website, comprising:

storing real property information from a portfolio of real
properties on a central database organized under a plurality of
information categories, including a general purpose category,
infrastructure category, business category, accounting category,
and maintenance category, wherein each item of real property
Appeal 2009-005179
Application 10/677,037

3
information is stored in only one of the plurality of information
categories;

selecting real property information for display;

retrieving the selected real property information from
multiple information categories on the central database;

combining the selected real property information from
the multiple information categories to provide a composite view
of the real property; and

displaying the selected real property information on the
website.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-4 and 9-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kramer (US 6,327,574 B1) and Lee (US 6,694,331 B2).

Claim Groupings
Although Appellant’s Brief places claims in separate headings, the
arguments upon which Appellant relies are, at most, those presented for
claim 1. Accordingly, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Kramer describes a database that includes a Facts database. The Facts
database contains personal information (e.g., name, address, and social
security number). Database content can be selected and displayed. Col. 12,
ll. 1-26; col. 13, ll. 5-19.

Appeal 2009-005179
Application 10/677,037

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to
weight in the patentability analysis. See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272,
1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12,
2006) (Rule 36) (“wellness-related” data in databases and communicated on
distributed network did not functionally change either the data storage
system or the communication system used in the claimed method). See also
Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
(discussing non-functional descriptive material).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the applied references fail to teach or suggest
storing real property information on a central database “organized under a
plurality of information categories, including a general purpose category,
infrastructure category, business category, accounting category, and
maintenance category, wherein each item of real property information is
stored in only one of the plurality of information categories” as recited in
claim 1. Appellant submits that the Examiner “is giving the express
language in claim 1 no patentable weight.” Br. 28.
However, how the “categories” may be named does not functionally
change the database. How the “information” may be named does not
functionally change the database. The act of storing data in different
categories in a database is the same regardless of how the data and the
categories may be named. The informational content of the data and
categories thus represent non-functional descriptive material, entitled to no
weight in the patentability analysis.
Appeal 2009-005179
Application 10/677,037

5
The recitation “wherein each item of real property information is
stored in only one of the plurality of information categories” -- i.e., each data
item is stored in only one of the plurality of categories -- merely follows
from the recognition in the prior art that a data item may be stored in one of
several mutually exclusive categories in a database. For example, one would
not store a person’s name in a social security number category. One would
not store a person’s social security number in a name category. See Kramer
col. 12, ll. 17-26.
To the extent that Appellant argues the “selecting” and displaying of
claim 1 is not taught by the references, we also find that the selecting data
for display, retrieving the data from multiple categories on the central
database, and combining the data from the multiple categories to provide a
composite view of the data as required by the claim is taught by Kramer. In
particular, Appellant has not shown that the “Selection Engine” of Kramer
(col. 13, ll. 5-19) fails to teach the retrieval and display process, in view of
what the claim actually requires.
We are thus not persuaded that any claim on appeal has been rejected
in error. We sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-4 and 9-27.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 9-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kramer and Lee is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-005179
Application 10/677,037

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

QUARLES & BRADY LLP
RENAISSANCE ONE
TWO NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
PHOENIX AZ 85004-2391