Fannie MaeDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 20212020002704 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation