Ex Parte Rossmark et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

14558375 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2017)

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.
14/558,375 12/02/2014 Sharon Rossmark 006591.00891 6563
71823 7590 06/14/2017
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 006591
10 SOUTH WACKER DR.
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
PTO-71823 @bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHARON ROSSMARK, LARRY KOBORI, and
GARY KERR
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,3751
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—21, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Allstate Insurance
Company. App. Br. 2.
2 Claim 3 was canceled by amendment on September 21, 2015.
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,375
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to determining a location for a new
office of a business, for example, an insurance company, based on
considering certain factors with respect to different geographical locations.
Spec. 2—3. Specifically, the invention uses a scoring algorithm to rank
geographical regions by zip code based on various modeling factors, such as
“1) households with 2+ vehicles current year estimate; 2) households with
2+ vehicles five year projection; 3) net change vehicle households in five
years . . . .” Spec. H 7—8, 32. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of determining an insurance agency location,
the method comprising:
providing a graphical user interface configured to prompt
a user to select a plurality of geographic regions, wherein the
plurality of geographic regions are each related to one of at least
two zip codes;
receiving, by a server, the plurality of geographic
locations;
determining, by the server, the at least two zip codes;
receiving, by the server, at least one modeling factor;
calculating, by the server, a score for each of the at least
two zip codes based at least in part on the at least one modeling
factor;
identifying and displaying, via the graphical user interface,
a zip code having a highest score of the scores for each of the at
least two zip codes; and
2
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,375
identifying and displaying, via the graphical user interface,
a zip code having a second-highest score of the scores for each
of the at least two zip codes.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Baechtiger (US 2005/0096972 Al; May 5, 2005). Final Act.
9-18.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baechtiger and Dasari (US 2004/0267743 Al; Dec. 30,
2004). Final Act. 18-21.
Claims 6—8, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baechtiger and Zizzamia (US 2006/0136273 Al; June 22,
2006). Final Act. 21-23.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baechtiger and Mattingly (US 2006/0242024 Al; Oct. 26,
2006). Final Act. 23-24.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baechtiger and Blackshaw (US 2006/0253316 Al; Nov. 9, 2006).
Final Act. 24-25.
Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baechtiger and Capanna (US 2006/0036524 Al; Feb. 16,
2006). Final Act. 25-27.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Baechtiger and Harvey (US 2007/0112791 Al; May 17, 2007). Final
Act. 27-28.
3
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,375
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Baechtiger, Dasari, and Harvey. Final Act. 28-29.
Claims 1, 2, and 4—21 stand rejected under the non-statutory doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over Kobori (US Patent 8,219,535 Bl;
Jul. 10,2012). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 1, 2, and 4—21 stand rejected under the non-statutory doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over Kobori (US Patent 8,805,805 Bl;
Aug. 12,2014). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 1, 2, and 4—21 stand rejected under the non-statutory doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting over Rossmark (US Patent 8,938,432
B2; Jan. 20, 2015). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 1, 2, and 4—21 stand provisionally rejected under the non-
statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over US Application
14/341,276. Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 16, 17, and 21
Appellants contend Baechtiger fails to disclose “calculating, by the
server, a score for each of the at least two zip codes” and “identifying and
displaying, via the graphical user interface, a zip code having a highest
score,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7—10. Appellants have
persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by
Baechtiger.
Baechtiger describes a method for evaluating the placement of
network service provider branches, for example, insurance agency branches.
See Baechtiger, || 12—13, 43. As part of the method, Baechtiger describes
4
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,375
identifying the value of service recipients who use the service provider
branches, where in one embodiment a service recipient can be a zip code.
See Baechtiger, H 44—50. The value of service recipients can be defined in
terms of a “branch reach” for each zip code, where branch reach is
calculated by multiplying the number of individuals in the zip code by a
probability of those individuals visiting the nearest existing service provider
branch based on the travel distance to the branch for individuals in the zip
code. See Baechtiger, H 51—53.
Although the Examiner does not make an explicit mapping between a
particular value employed by Baechtiger’s method and the claim 1 limitation
“calculating ... a score for each of the at least two zip codes,” the Examiner
emphasizes Baechtiger’s use of the number of individuals in each zip code
in finding Baechtiger discloses the claimed “score.” See Ans. 5—6.3
The Examiner finds Baechtiger discloses “identifying and displaying”
a zip code having the claimed “score” because Baechtiger’s map in Figure
10 “shows a graphical representation of composite service provider branch
location value” where “[sjhading 110 is used to show composite values of
potential service provider branch locations.” Ans. 6-7 (citing Baechtiger,
181). Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the map does not
display a zip code with the highest score, as claimed. App. Br. 9.
3 Appellants argue the number of individuals in a zip code is not a calculated
score, but rather data that is merely retrieved from a data source. App. Br. 7.
We do not decide the outcome of the anticipation rejection on this issue,
however, because we agree with Appellants that Baechtiger does not
disclose “displaying, via the graphical user interface, a zip code having a
highest score.” See App. Br. 8—9.
5
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,375
Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred. Baechtiger’s
Figure 10 does not display a zip code having the highest score, as recited in
claim 1, because Baechtiger’s accompanying description of Figure 10 does
not describe a correlation between the shading 110 and any alleged scores
for individual zip codes. See Baechtiger, | 81. Accordingly, to the extent
the Examiner finds the population for a zip code is “a score,” the Examiner
has not shown Baechtiger discloses displaying a zip code identified as
having the highest population, or score.
On this record we, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claim 16, which recites commensurate
limitations, and dependent claims 2, 17, and 21.
Claim 18
Independent claim 18 recites a similar limitation to independent claim
1, namely, “displaying a ranking of the final scores for each of the zip
codes.” As discussed above, the Examiner has not shown Baechtiger
discloses displaying scores for zip codes. Further, the Examiner has not
shown Harvey cures this deficiency. See Final Act. 27—28. On this record
we, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 18.
Claims 4—15, 19, and 20
The Examiner has not shown the addition of the Dasari, Zizzamia,
Mattingly, Blackshaw, Capanna, and Harvey references cure the deficiency
of Baechtiger discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 18,
from which claims 4—15, 19, and 20 depend. On this record we, therefore,
do not sustain the rejection of claims 4—15, 19, and 20 for the same reasons
as independent claims 1 and 18.
6
Appeal 2017-002811
Application 14/558,375
The Double Patenting Rejections
Appellants do not present arguments contesting the double patenting
rejections; rather, “Appellants have requested these rejections be held in
abeyance until the present claims are deemed allowable but for the double
patenting rejections, at which time Appellants will consider filing a terminal
disclaimer” (App. Br. 6). In the absence of specific arguments showing
error, we pro forma sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejections of
claims 1, 2, and 4—21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4—21.
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
7