Fannie Mae

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 1, 2021

2020003936 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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. 14/444,041 07/28/2014 John Treadwell 880417-0138-US00 1255 134795 7590 03/01/2021 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC) 790 N WATER ST SUITE 2500 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 EXAMINER WEISENFELD, ARYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2021 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 nbenjamin@michaelbest.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN TREADWELL, ERIC ROSENBLATT, JESSE STAAL, LIN FENG, and WEIFENG WU Appeal 2020-003936 Application 14/444,041 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, AMEE A. SHAH, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing in this matter was held on February 4, 2021. We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fannie Mae. Appeal Br. 2. (This Decision refers to the Corrected Appeal Brief, dated March 6, 2020). Appeal 2020-003936 Application 14/444,041 2 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A method for modeling appropriate comparable properties, the method comprising: accessing, by a computing device, property data, wherein subsets of properties represented in the property data are determined to be members of respective condominium projects; performing, by the computing device, a hedonic regression based upon the property data, the hedonic regression modeling the relationship between price and explanatory variables, the explanatory variables including a condominium project identifier variable that is arranged as a location fixed effect variable, such that respective instances of values of the condominium project identifier variable correspond to the respective condominium projects as respective instances of the location fixed effect variable; retrieving, by the computing device, an appraisal for a subject condominium property that identifies corresponding appraiser-identified comparables; determining, by the computing device, model-identified comparables corresponding to the subject condominium property using results of the hedonic regression; evaluating, by the computing device, at least one of the appraiser-identified comparables using a comparison to the model-identified comparables or the results of the hedonic regression; displaying a map image corresponding to a geographical area; displaying indicators on the map image indicative of the subject condominium property along with at least one of the appraiser-chosen comparables and the model-chosen comparables; and receiving a zooming input operation and updating the display of the map image with an adjustment of the indicators displayed on the map image as a result of the zooming input operation. Appeal 2020-003936 Application 14/444,041 3 REJECTION Claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Treadwell et al. (US 2012/0323799 A1, pub. Dec. 20, 2012, hereinafter “Treadwell”). FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 as anticipated, because the Treadwell reference fails to teach, for example, performing the “hedonic regression” “modeling the relationship between price and explanatory variables,” wherein the “explanatory variables” include “a condominium project identifier variable that is arranged as a location fixed effect variable, such that respective instances of values of the condominium project identifier variable correspond to the respective condominium projects as respective instances of the location fixed effect variable,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7–12. Rather, the Appellant argues, “Treadwell identifies condominium properties as an issue of general interest, but completely retains the geographical notion of a location fixed effect variable” — in particular, Treadwell employs the purely geographical feature of a “Census Block Group (CBG) as the location fixed effect variable.” Id. at 8. “By contrast,” the Appellant contends, “in claim 1, the condominium project is used as the explanatory variable, rather than a geographical area.” Id. The Examiner remains unpersuaded that “the use of a CBG delineation for geography of a fixed location variable is somehow different Appeal 2020-003936 Application 14/444,041 4 than condominium projects,” because (in Treadwell) “the entire application is directed towards identifying information on condominium projects.” Answer 4. Indeed, Treadwell is entitled “Modeling Comparable Properties Where The Subject Property is a Condominium Property.” Yet, the Appellant’s Specification makes clear that the claimed “condominium project” is narrower than a Census Block Group: “A condo project may be defined as a set of condominium properties that share a common legal project name, were constructed within a few years of one another (to differentiate phases), and are located within the same census block group (CBG).” Spec. ¶ 40. Therefore, the Appellant persuades us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for the same reason, independent claim 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–11, 13, 14 102(a)(1) Treadwell 1–4, 6–11, 13, 14 REVERSED