Ex Parte Weitermann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2013

12360683 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL FREDRICK WEITERMANN and
LISA MARIE MROCHINSKI
___________

Appeal 2011-010032
Application 12/360,683
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-010032
Application 12/360,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Michael Fredrick Weitermann et al. (Appellants) seek our review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of comparing insurance premiums of
at least two insurance companies, comprising:
providing a plurality of rating factors, each
of the rating factors at least partially defining a
risk, each of the rating factors having at least two
possible values;
selecting, using a processor, at least one of
the rating factor values for each of the plurality of
rating factors based on a first predetermined
distribution of rating factor values for each of the
plurality of rating factors;
generating a plurality of entities representing
parties to be insured, each of the entities defined at
least in part by the rating factor values selected
according to the first predetermined distribution

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 1, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 15, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 16, 2011).

Appeal 2011-010032
Application 12/360,683

3
and independent from another one of the entities;
retrieving premium calculation data of a first
insurance provider from a memory coupled to the
processor;
calculating a premium of the first insurance
provider, the premium of the first insurance
provider at least partially based upon the premium
calculation data of the first insurance provider and
the generated plurality of entities;
retrieving premium calculation data of a
second insurance provider from the memory
coupled to the processor; and
calculating a premium of the second
insurance provider, the premium of the second
insurance provider at least partially based upon the
premium calculation data of the second insurance
provider and the generated plurality of entities
used to calculate the premium of the first insurance
provider.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Baer
Ogawa
Radigan
Matsumura
US 5,414,836
US 2001/0023404 A1
US 6,772,128 B2
JP 10228462A
May 9, 1995
Sep. 20, 2001
Aug. 3, 2004
Aug. 25, 1998
The following rejections are before us for review:

1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogawa.
Appeal 2011-010032
Application 12/360,683

4
2. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogawa and Baer.
3. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogawa and Radigan.
4. Claims 10, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ogawa and Matsumura.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Ogawa describes “generating a plurality of
entities representing parties to be insured, each of the entities defined at least
in part by the rating factor values selected according to the first
predetermined distribution and independent from another one of the
entities.” (Claim 1.)

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the findings of facts, which may appear in the Analysis
below, are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon,
Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 under § 102
as being anticipated by Ogawa
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Ogawa. We agree with the Appellants that Ogawa does not describe
Appeal 2011-010032
Application 12/360,683

5
generating a plurality of entities where each of the entities is defined at least
in part by the rating factor values that were selected during the previous
selecting step. Ogawa generates a single entity (i.e., a set of conditions)
from the user inputted trial calculation-conditions (see para. [0035] “based
upon conditions that are input only once”), and not multiple entities.
Specifically, the Examiner is incorrect that the rate quotes from insurance
companies A, B, and C in Ogawa correspond to the recited “plurality of
entities representing parties to be insured” (Ans. 4, 10), as each rate quote is
for the same entity to be insured.
Independent claims 11 and 21 recite similar limitations and are
rejected using the same reasoning (see Ans. 6-7). Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 1, 11, and 21, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 22,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ogawa
is reversed.

The rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogawa and Baer; the rejection of claims 6 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Radigan; and the
rejection of claims 10, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogawa and Matsumura
These rejections are directed to claims dependent on claims whose
rejection we have reversed above. For the same reasons, we will not sustain
the rejections of claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 16, 20, and 23 over the cited prior art.
Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
Appeal 2011-010032
Application 12/360,683

6
nonobvious.”). We note that the Examiner does not rely upon Baer,
Radigan, or Matsumura to cure the deficiency of Ogawa discussed above.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-23 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls