Fannie Mae

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2021

2020002704 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021)

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.
14/208,866 03/13/2014 Megan C. Berry 880417-0135-US00 5798
134795 7590 12/01/2021
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
ZHAO, YU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2021 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
ajheins@michaelbest.com
nbenjamin@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MEGAN C. BERRY, ERIC ROSENBLATT, JESSE STAAL,
DAVID A. TALBIRD and ANGELA TSENG
____________________

Appeal 2020-002704
Application 14/208,866
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 74 through 76 and 79 through 86. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, Fannie Mae is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002704
Application 14/208,866

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention relates to a system that aggregates into a data
structure, property information from multiple databases, e.g., from all
records included in those databases, and, upon selection of any subject
property or a characteristic thereof, curates the often imperfect and
discrepant property information to create suggested values. Abstract.
Claim 74 is reproduced below.
74. A computer program product embodied on a non-
transitory computer-readable data storage device wherein the
computer program product processes a set of collapsed values
for a subject property, the computer program product
comprising:
computer code for aggregating property data from
multiple databases into a data structure, the property data
includes property information;
computer code for extracting the property information
from the data structure after the property data from the multiple
databases have been aggregated into the data structure, the
property information includes records that pertain to the subject
property;
computer code for sorting the records into sub-stacks
after the property information has been extracted from the data
structure, one of the sub-stacks comprises the records that
pertain to a characteristic of the subject property;
computer code for generating a user interface that
presents a list of property characteristics on a display device,
the characteristic is one of the property characteristics; and
computer code for positioning a selectable field on the
display device adjacent the characteristic in a manner that a list
of the records in the one of the sub-stacks becomes viewable on
the display device when a user clicks the selectable field.

Appeal 2020-002704
Application 14/208,866

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 74, 79, 80, 81, and 83 through 86 under
35 U.S.C. § 103as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Buros (US
2007/0106711 A1, published May 10, 2007) and Cookson (US
2005/0149522 A1, published July 7, 2005). Final Act. 5–22.
The Examiner rejects claims 75 and 76 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Buros, Cookson, and Bruich
(US 2014/0297404 A1, published Oct. 2, 2014). Final Act. 22–27.
The Examiner rejects claim 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Buros, Cookson, and Frazier (US
2012/0278243 A1, published Nov. 1, 2012). Final Act. 27–28.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply
Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 74. Appeal Br. 5–23, Reply Br. 2–25. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Buros and Cookson teaches aggregating

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 2,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”);
Final Office Action mailed May 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 23, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-002704
Application 14/208,866

4
property data from multiple databases into a data structure; extracting
property data from the data structure after the aggregation of the data and
then “sorting the records into sub-stacks after the property information has
been extracted from the data structure, one of the sub-stacks comprises the
records that pertain to a characteristic of the subject property,” as recited in
independent claim 74.
The Examiner finds that Buros teaches aggregating data from multiple
databases into a data structure, extracting the data from the data structure,
and searching the data extracted from the data structure. Final Act 5–11
(citing Buros ¶¶ 40, 54, 56, 58, 60, 80, and 89). Further, the Examiner finds
that Buros does not disclose property data but that Cookson does. Final
Act. 14 (citing Cookson ¶ 68). Based upon these findings, the Examiner
concludes the disputed claim limitations are obvious. Final Act. 14–15. In
making this conclusion, the Examiner interprets the claimed term
“aggregating” as “collected” and finds that this is met by Buros’ teaching of
collecting data from different databases. Ans. 5 (citing Buros ¶40). The
Examiner interprets the claim step of “extracting” data as “retrieving data”
and finds that this is met by Buros’ teaching of aggregating data from
different databases. Ans. 6– 9 (citing Buros, Figs. 3, 4, ¶¶ 40, 57, 58).
Additionally the Examiner interprets the claim step of “sorting” as
“manipulating data in certain ways (e.g., grouping data in different groups or
combining multiple data into a single data).” Ans. 12. Based upon this
interpretation, the Examiner finds that the claimed sorting is taught by
Buros’s teachings of aggregating by combining data. Ans. 12–13 (citing
¶¶ 40, 54, and 89).
Appeal 2020-002704
Application 14/208,866

5
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Independent clam 74 recites a step of aggregating property data
(data) into a data structure, after the data is aggregated, extracting the
information (including records) from the data structure, and after the
information is extracted, sorting the records. Although we concur with the
Examiner that Buros teaches extracting data from databases and aggregating
the data, we disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation as it relates to
the claimed step of sorting, and that Buros teaches performing the steps of
aggregating, extracting, and sorting in the manner and order claimed. The
Examiner has not shown that the interpretation of “sorting” as “manipulating
data in certain ways (e.g., grouping data in different groups or combining
multiple data into a single data” (discussed on page 12 of the Answer) is
commensurate with Appellant’s Specification or the common meaning of the
term sorting. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that sorting can be
reasonably interpreted as combining multiple data into single data, which is
the claim interpretation the Examiner relies upon to support the finding that
Buros teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 13. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 74 and
dependent claims 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, and 86 which are similarly rejected
based upon the combination of Buros and Cookson.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claim 75, 76,
and 82, rely upon the combination of Buros and Cookson to teach the
limitations of claim 74, from which they depend. Final Act. 22, 27.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
dependent claim 75, 76, and 82 for the same reasons as claim 74.

Appeal 2020-002704
Application 14/208,866

6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
74, 79, 80,
81, 83–86
103 Buros, Cookson 74, 79, 80,
81, 83–86
75, 76 103 Buros, Cookson,
Bruich
75, 76
82 103 Buros, Cookson,
Frazier
82
Overall
Outcome
74–76, 79–
86
REVERSED