Paper No. __________
`Filed: April 10, 2014
`
`Filed on behalf of: Trulia, Inc.
`By: Michael T. Rosato
`Jennifer J. Schmidt
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue
`Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Tel.: 206-883-2529
`Fax: 206-883-2699
`Email: mrosato@wsgr.com
`Email: jschmidt@wsgr.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`TRULIA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZILLOW, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`Patent No. 7,970,674
`
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. KURSH, PH.D., CSDP, CLP
`
`TRULIA – EXHIBIT 1016
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS........................................................................................1
`
`SCOPE OF WORK..........................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME .........................3
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’674 PATENT ............................................................4
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................7
`
`VI. CERTAIN REFERENCES TEACH ALL OF THE CLAIMED
`FEATURES OF THE ’674 PATENT .............................................................9
`
`VII. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS................................................................105
`
`i
`
`

`
`I, Steven R. Kursh, Ph.D., CSDP, CLP. declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`My name is Steven R. Kursh. I am employed at Northeastern
`1.
`University as Executive Professor in the College of Business Administration, and I
`also teach in the College of Engineering.
`
`I have also developed and taught courses at Harvard University, the
`2.
`University of Pennsylvania, and in continuing professional education programs.
`Several of my courses have covered topics directly related, but not limited, to real
`estate finance, real estate appraisal, statistics, econometrics, software development,
`and e-commerce.
`
`I hold an A.B. from Boston College (m agna cum laude , Scholar of the
`3.
`College) and a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. Early in my academic
`career I took continuing education courses offered by the Appraisal Institute.
`
`One of my primary fields of study in graduate school at the University
`4.
`of Pennsylvania was Housing and Real Estate Finance. At that time the real estate
`program at the University of Pennsylvania was widely considered to be among the
`leading programs in the United States.
`
`5. While in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania, I
`developed and taught graduate-level (Master’s programs) courses in Real Estate
`Finance and Statistics. I was awarded fellowships from grants from the U.S.
`Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of
`Energy. These grants focused respectively on assessing how federal housing
`programs and other programs impact housing markets and investments in housing.
`My first peer-reviewed published article focused on urban housing markets. I have
`also researched and written other peer-reviewed publications related to housing
`and finance.
`
`In my first full-time academic position (Assistant Professor) at
`6.
`Northeastern University I began a track in real estate finance. As part of this
`effort, I developed and taught real estate finance courses, recruited faculty and was
`active in the professional real estate community in the Boston area.
`
`I have worked as a consultant to the banking industry and as a
`7.
`consultant to a major regional bank where my duties focused on lending activities,
`
`1
`
`

`
`including, but not limited to, management and assessment of appraisal services,
`loan sales, secondary mortgage market activities, and pricing.
`
`I now maintain an active management consulting practice, where I
`8.
`provide consulting services to Fortune 500 companies, closely-held businesses and
`investors. My consulting clients include AT&T, IBM, Citicorp, HP, and financial
`institutions.
`
`I have been admitted as an expert before arbitration panels (AAA and
`9.
`JAMS), state courts, and federal courts (Southern District of New York, Northern
`District of California, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of Massachusetts,
`Eastern District of New York, and Eastern District of Texas), in matters relating to
`software intellectual property (copyrights, trade secrets, and patents). My expert
`witness experience includes being admitted as an expert in matters regarding the
`development of technologies and business practices for investment management,
`back-office systems at financial institutions, retail banking services, real estate
`appraisal and risk-management software, and e-commerce, among other topics.
`
`I am certified by the IEEE Computer Society as a Computer Software
`10.
`Development Professional, the qualifications for which include documentation of
`at least 9,000 hours of professional work in software development, passing a
`rigorous examination, and remaining current in the field through continuing
`education and other activities.
`
`I have published and lectured extensively, primarily focusing in the
`11.
`areas of the software industry and the Internet, including evaluation of software
`programs, finance, strategy, valuation of software products and services, e-
`commerce, and team performance in technology-related projects. Earlier in my
`career I published and lectured extensively on topics related to housing and real
`estate finance.
`
`I was named a Fulbright Scholar in 2005 and conducted research and
`12.
`teaching in innovation, information technologies, and finance in Warsaw, Poland.
`
`I have more than twenty-five years of experience in the software
`13.
`industry, the financial services industry, and the Internet industry, including
`founding and serving as president of a software company named Blackacre
`Financial Software that developed, marketed, licensed and implemented software
`used by professional services firms, insurance companies, and financial
`institutions. Our products were extensively used in applications related to housing
`
`2
`
`

`
`finance, including, but not limited to, real estate loan origination, real estate loan
`processing (including activities related to appraisals), real estate loan closings, and
`real estate loan foreclosures.
`
`14. A copy of my CV is attached as Appendix A, and also as Ex. 1003.
`
`I understand that a petition is being filed with the United States Patent
`15.
`and Trademark Office for transitional covered business method patent review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,674 to David Cheng et al. (“’674 patent,” attached as Ex.
`1001).
`
`I understand that the real party in interest to the petition is Trulia. I
`16.
`understand that the ’674 patent is currently assigned to Zillow, Inc. (“Zillow”).
`
`I have been retained by Trulia to provide various opinions regarding
`17.
`the ’674 patent.
`I have been specifically asked to provide my opinions on claims
`2, 5, 15-25 and 40.
`
`I do not have any other current or past affiliation as an expert witness
`18.
`or consultant with Trulia. I do not have any current or past affiliation with Zillow,
`and I do not have any financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF WORK
`
`I have reviewed the ’674 patent and its file history. I have also
`19.
`reviewed and considered various other documents in arriving at my opinions, and
`may cite to them in this declaration. For convenience, the information considered
`in arriving at my opinions is listed in Appendix B.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME
`
`I have been advised that the ’674 patent application was filed on
`20.
`February 3, 2006.
`
`I have been advised that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`21.
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom one could assign a routine task with
`reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I have been
`advised that the relevant timeframe is prior to February 3, 2006. When I refer to
`February 2006, I am referring specifically prior to February 3, 2006.
`
`3
`
`

`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field in
`22.
`February 2006 would include someone who has, through education or practical
`experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in a business or finance discipline
`and at least two years of formal training or work experience, or the equivalent
`education, developing or working with computerized financial and real estate
`valuation systems.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’674 PATENT
`
`The ’674 patent is generally directed to “a real estate valuation
`23.
`system” that will automatically determine the value of a real estate property based
`on information provided by an individual.
`
`The ’674 patent was filed on February 3, 2006, and issued on June 28,
`24.
`2011 with forty claims. The patent abstract discloses that the patent teaches “a
`facility procuring information about a distinguished property from its owner that is
`usable to refine an automatic valuation of the distinguished property.” The patent
`“displays information about the distinguished property . . . obtains user input from
`the owner adjusting at least one aspect of information about the distinguished
`property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property” and
`“displays to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished property that is
`based on the adjustment of the obtained user input.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`The ’674 patent claims generically recite “automatic valuation,”
`25.
`“obtaining user input” and “refined valuation” but fail to identify anything new or
`non-obvious that was not already being performed by real estate appraisers or
`disclosed in patents at the time the application was filed.
`
`26. Real estate valuation methods long predated the ’674 patent. It was
`well known at the time of the ’674 patent application filing that computer-based
`methods and systems existed for automatically valuing homes. This is admitted in
`the “Background” section of the ’674 patent. Se e Ex. 1001 at 1:24-46. Such
`automated valuation systems were typically computer-based applications of
`traditional valuation approaches commonly performed during a real estate
`appraisal or valuation process. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0035520 to Weiss
`(“Weiss,” Ex. 1005), described in further detail below, recites the following:
`
`[A]utomated real estate valuation engines may be used to generate
`real estate appraisals or property valuations, whether via a Web site or
`other system. Such valuation engines typically generate property
`
`4
`
`

`
`valuations based on property characteristics, prior sales of the subject
`property, location, and recent sales of nearby properties. These are
`typically systems that provide an automated alternative to the pen and
`paper methods traditionally used.
`
`Weiss (Ex. 1005) at ¶19.
`
`Prior to the ’674 patent filing, a number of printed publications were
`27.
`available describing such systems. Some systems were available for internet-based
`access by a user. An example is the following webpage from real-info.com, which
`is referenced in the ’674 patent’s other publications section and which discusses
`automated valuation model (AVM) products:
`
`Available automated systems were commonly used in appraisals by
`28.
`real estate professionals, but it would not have been uncommon for a wide variety
`of users (i.e . buyers, sellers, homeowners, etc.) to have access to these tools. As
`illustrated by the real-info.com publication, systems were widely accessible, e .g.,
`via the internet. One of the trends driven by the Internet was that information and
`access previously limited to the few became available to the many.
`
`29. Additionally, prior to the ’674 patent filing, real estate valuation
`systems and methodologies, including automated valuations, commonly made use
`of various valuation models and statistical methodologies that were well-known.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Commonly employed models and methodologies included convergence models,
`regression models and methods (e .g., linear regression analysis), hedonic models,
`classification trees, constrained computational analysis, as well as various hybrid
`models making use of a combination of various analytical techniques. A
`description of some of such techniques is provided, e .g., in an article by David L.
`Jensen, included herewith as Ex. 1010. Various other publications were available
`prior to the ’674 patent application filing date describing such models, including
`references described in further detail below.
`
`30. A number of the ’674 patent claims recite aspects of such well-known
`methodologies. For example, dependent claims 18-25 and 40 merely recite aspects
`of valuation models, statistical methods, and weighting methodologies (e .g.,
`geographically-specific models, external data sources, linear regression,
`classification tree data organization, hybrid models, weighting, simple constrained
`analysis, e tc.) that were well-known in the art prior to the ’674 patent filing. Claim
`22 recites a specific but simplistic design choice in a weighting calculation that
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of basic statistical
`techniques or teachings available at the time, including information that could be
`derived from a statistics textbook.
`
`The ’674 patent actually expressly describes its classification trees
`31.
`model as employing known modeling techniques. Se e , e .g., ’674 patent at 5:41-46
`(“In some embodiments, the facility constructs and applies random forest valuation
`models using an R mathematical software package available at http://cran.r-
`project.org/ and described at
`http://www.maths.lth.se/help/R/.R/library/randomForest/html/randomForest.html.”
`)
`
`32. At the time of the ’674 patent application filing, automated valuation
`systems were certainly amenable to receiving user input and generating valuations
`based at least in part upon received user input. It is essentially self-evident that
`any user-accessible computer system would be responsive to user input. As an
`example, the publication to Peter Rossini, “Using Expert Systems and Artificial
`Intelligence for Real Estate Forecasting,” Sixth Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate
`Society Conference, Sydney, Australia, 24-27 January 2000 (“Rossini,” Ex. 1011)
`describes an automated valuation system that determines a property valuation
`making use of user input. Rossini provides an example of an automated property
`valuation system including a seven-step process including generating a valuation
`and then obtaining user input for a refined valuation:
`
`6
`
`

`
`Step 1. Collect and input details of the subject property.
`
`Step 2. Find “appropriate” sales from the market place - using search
`and filter systems from the monthly updated sales database.
`
`Step 3. Model the market using sales from Step 2. Test for any
`relationships and find the coefficients.
`
`Step 4. Establish major value determinants and adjustments from the
`model in Step 3.
`
`Step 5. Find “appropriate” number of the most comparable sales -
`using expert knowledge and value determinants from Step 4.
`
`Step 6. Make adjustments to the most comparable sales to allow for
`differences between the subject and sale properties.
`
`Step 7. Estimate value based on adjusted prices and relative
`comparability of each sale - using a weighted mean approach.
`
`Rossini at 5 (emphasis in original).
`
`33. A number of additional prior art publications describing automated
`valuation systems that determine property valuations, including refined valuations
`based on user input, are described in further detail below.
`
`34. As set forth in further detail below, it is my opinion that the claims of
`the ’674 patent would not have been considered new or non-obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. A number of prior art references are discussed that, alone
`or in combination with other references, describe each and every feature of claims
`2, 5, 15-25 and 40 of the ’674 patent.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I have been advised that, in the present proceeding, the ’674 patent
`35.
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the
`specification and that this standard differs from the standard used in district court
`patent litigation proceedings. I also understand that, at the same time, absent some
`reason to the contrary, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and
`
`7
`
`

`
`accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. I
`have followed these principles in my analysis throughout this declaration. I
`discuss a few terms below and what I understand as constructions of these terms.
`
`36. Computer Readable Medium for Storing Contents: Claim 2 is
`directed to a “computer readable medium for storing contents.” While the
`computer readable medium is defined in claim 2 as being capable of storing
`contents that cause a computing system to perform the recited method steps, claim
`2 does not expressly require that those contents are actually stored on the claimed
`computer readable medium.
`
`37. Nevertheless, for purposes of prior art analysis, I have addressed the
`computer readable medium of claims 2 and 5 as having, actually and physically
`stored thereon, the contents that cause a computer system to perform the recited
`method steps.
`
`38. Owner: Claim 2 recites the term “owner” with respect to a property
`(e .g., “obtaining user input from the owner”). As noted, claim 2 is directed to a
`“computer readable medium for storing contents” (e .g., software), that causes a
`computing system to perform certain method steps, including obtaining user input.
`
`I understand that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, an
`39.
`identity of a user of a computing system is not claim language which imparts any
`meaningful structure to the computer readable medium of claim 2 or dependent
`claim 5. Nothing in the ’674 patent claims or specification identifies a computer
`readable medium, or software, usable to refine an automatic valuation of a
`property, as differing structurally when a user addressing the software is an owner
`of the home, compared to when the user has a different identity. In fact, the ’674
`patent indicates that “a wide variety of users may use the facility, including the
`owner, an agent or other person representing the owner, a prospective buyer, an
`agent or other person representing prospective buyer, or another third party.” Id. at
`2:64-67. Additionally, the ’674 patent uses the terms “seller” and “owner”
`interchangeably. Se e , e .g., id. at 1:21-22; 2:65-66; 4:6-7.
`
`40. User knowledgeable about the distinguished home: The preamble
`of claim 15 recites “a user knowledgeable about the distinguished home,” but the
`term is recited nowhere else in the claim. I understand that this phrase is recited in
`a part of the claim referred to as the “preamble,” and that language in a claim
`preamble does not typically provide specific limitations to the claims. I
`
`8
`
`

`
`understand, under the broadest reasonable construction of claim 15, this language
`in the claim does not impart any particular limitation.
`
`41. Claim 15 does also recite a step including “obtaining user input
`adjusting,” but does not specify said “user input” as obtained from “a user
`knowledgeable about the distinguished home.” As noted above, the term “user” is
`broadly defined in the ’674 patent. Se e , e .g., id. at 2:64-67 (“a wide variety of users
`may use the facility, including the owner, an agent or other person representing the
`owner, a prospective buyer, an agent or other person representing prospective
`buyer, or another third party.”) Accordingly, the recited “user input” includes
`input from any user, and may broadly include input from an owner, agent or other
`person representing the owner, a prospective buyer, an agent or other person
`representing a prospective buyer, or another third party.
`
`VI. CERTAIN REFERENCES TEACH ALL OF THE CLAIMED
`FEATURES OF THE ’674 PATENT
`
`Each and Every Feature of Claims 2, 5, 15-18, 20, 25 and 40 is disclosed
`in U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0035520 to Allan N. Weiss (“Weiss”)
`
`42. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0035520 to Allan N. Weiss (“Weiss,”
`attached as Ex. 1005), entitled “Property Rating and Ranking System and
`Method,” was filed on July 31, 2001 and published on March 21, 2002. I
`understand Weiss qualifies as prior art to the ’674 patent for this proceeding. As
`explained in further detail below, Weiss teaches each and every feature of claims 2,
`5, 15-18, 20, 25 and 40 of the ’674 patent.
`
`43. Weiss is directed to and discloses a system including a core property
`valuation system and functional modules, adjustment of property attributes and
`recalculation of valuation. Se e , e .g., Weiss at Abstract; ¶81; ¶52; Fig 1A (shown
`below).
`
`9
`
`

`
`44. Valuation in Weiss can include core property valuation as well as
`functional modules of the system, including, e .g., a property rating and ranking
`system (SPR). In particular, Weiss describes “a seller-based property rating and
`ranking (SPR) system . . . with the ability to analyze its property (i.e ., a subject
`property) in terms of current (or historical), substantially object market data.” Id.
`at ¶43. The system of Weiss “may be used to store the property valuation
`application instructions (including algorithms and modeling techniques) and
`parameters, factors and/or other data used in the valuation of the subject property,
`as well as historical real estate transaction data.” Id. at ¶81. The “client seller
`enters a set of subject property information, corresponding to typical listing
`information for its subject property . . . All of the subject property information is
`editable. Rating and/or ranking may be accomplished, at least in part, by obtaining
`an automated property valuation of the subject property and comparing the
`proposed list price to the automated property valuation.” Id. at ¶44. “The client
`seller may use the rating and/or ranking functionality of the SPR system to help
`assess or determine the benefit of certain contemplated home improvements in the
`relevant market (e.g., the addition of a garage, a pool, or hardwood floors or the
`upgrade of a kitchen) by having the subject property rated and/or ranked as though
`those improvements existed.” Id. at ¶204. “This information is presented to the
`client in a meaningful format.” Id. at ¶282.
`
`The following claim chart explains in further detail how Weiss
`45.
`discloses every element of claims 2, 5, 15-18, 20, 25 and 40 of the ’674 patent.
`
`10
`
`

`
`The below claim chart identifies exemplary disclosure of Weiss relevant to the
`corresponding claim elements, and is not meant to be exclusive.
`
`’674 Patent
`
`Weiss
`
`2. A computer readable
`medium for storing
`contents that causes a
`computing system to
`perform a method for
`procuring information
`about a distinguished
`property from its owner
`that is usable to refine an
`automatic valuation of the
`distinguished property,
`the method comprising:
`
`Weiss discloses a system that includes a core property
`valuation system and functional modules. “A system
`and method is provided that includes a core property
`valuation system and one or more functional modules.
`Variously, the modules facilitate automatic adjustment
`of an equity line of credit, generation and management
`of an equity credit card, unsecured debt conversion to
`an equity loan, rapid closing of a conforming loan,
`automated PMI removal, property rating and/or
`ranking for buyers and sellers, evaluation and alerts,
`relocation alerts, relocation forecasting, property
`tradeoffs, and broker evaluations.” Weiss at Abstract.
`Se e also Fig. 1A:
`
`11
`
`

`
`’674 Patent
`
`Weiss
`
`“In the preferred form, the property valuation system
`160 includes
`a property valuation program or
`application executed by the property valuation server
`162 to determine and return a property valuation of a
`subject property in response to a request. When the
`subject property is real property, the request includes a
`street address of the subject property and, potentially,
`other relevant information (e.g., number of bedrooms
`in a house). The property valuation database 161 may
`be used to store the property valuation application
`instructions
`(including algorithms
`and modeling
`techniques) and parameters, factors and/or other data
`used in the valuation of the subject property, as well as
`historical real estate transaction data.” Id. at ¶81.
`
`“The PT system can also include functionality to
`predict the sale price as a function of list price and
`automated property valuation . . . Of course, other
`manners of representing this or similar information
`may be used. Also, any of a wide variety of predictive
`models known in the mathematical arts may be used.”
`Id. at ¶52.
`
`“The client seller defines its subject property by
`entering traditional real estate listing information into
`an SPR system via a Web site interface. System
`manager 710 stores the subject property information in
`DB 151. Valuation manager 712 retrieves the subject
`property information and tasks property valuation
`system 160 to provide
`an automated property
`valuation for the subject (i.e., the seller's) property.”
`Id. at ¶206.
`
`in a
`“This information is presented to the client
`meaningful format (e.g., list, table or graph) and from
`
`12
`
`[2a] displaying at least a
`portion of information
`about the distinguished
`property used in the
`automatic valuation of the
`distinguished property;
`
`

`
`’674 Patent
`
`Weiss
`
`[2b] obtaining user input
`from the owner adjusting
`at least one aspect of
`information about the
`distinguished property
`used in the automatic
`valuation of the
`distinguished property;
`and
`
`this information the client may determine that it is
`desirable to price the subject property below market
`value to sell it quickly (as in case Z). Using the initial
`client entered subject property information (e.g., 13
`Oak Street, Lexington, Mass., single family home, 3
`bedroom, 1.5 bath), the PT system tasks the property
`valuation system 160 to return a property valuation
`(e.g., $230K).” Id. at ¶282.
`
`“A seller-based property rating and ranking (SPR)
`system and method in accordance with the present
`invention provides a client seller with the ability to
`analyze its property (i.e., a subject property) in terms
`of current
`(or historical),
`substantially objective
`market data. By doing so,
`the client seller can
`determine how its subject property would be rated
`and/or ranked at different price points or with different
`features, which may prove useful in determining a list
`price for the subject property. ” Id. at ¶43.
`
`“Accordingly, the client seller enters a set of subject
`property information, corresponding to typical listing
`information for its subject property. Preferably, the
`client seller enters a proposed list price for the subject
`property. All of the subject property information is
`editable. ” Id. at ¶44.
`
`“The client seller may use the rating and/or ranking
`functionality of the SPR system to help assess or
`determine the benefit of certain contemplated home
`improvements in the relevant market (e.g., the addition
`of a garage, a pool, or hardwood floors or the upgrade
`of a kitchen) by having the subject property rated
`and/or ranked as though those improvements existed.”
`Id. at ¶204.
`
`13
`
`

`
`’674 Patent
`
`Weiss
`
`[2c] displaying to the
`owner a refined valuation
`of the distinguished
`property that is based on
`the adjustment of the
`obtained user input.
`
`“A seller-based property rating and ranking (SPR)
`system and method in accordance with the present
`invention provides a client seller with the ability to
`analyze its property (i.e., a subject property) in terms
`of current (or historical), substantially objective
`market data. By doing so, the client seller can
`determine how its subject property would be rated
`and/or ranked at different price points or with different
`features, which may prove useful in determining a list
`price for the subject property. ” Weiss at ¶43.
`
`“Accordingly, the client seller enters a set of subject
`property information, corresponding to typical listing
`information for its subject property. Preferably, the
`client seller enters a proposed list price for the subject
`property. All of the subject property information is
`editable. Rating and/or ranking may be accomplished,
`at least in part, by obtaining an automated property
`valuation of the subject property and comparing the
`proposed list price to the automated property
`valuation. Changing the list price for the subject
`property typically changes the rating and/or ranking,
`when a criterion is related to price. ” Id. at ¶44.
`
`“The client seller may use the rating and/or ranking
`functionality of the SPR system to help assess or
`determine the benefit of certain contemplated home
`improvements in the relevant market (e.g., the addition
`of a garage, a pool, or hardwood floors or the upgrade
`of a kitchen) by having the subject property rated
`and/or ranked as though those improvements existed.”
`Id. at ¶204.
`
`in a
`“This information is presented to the client
`meaningful format (e.g., list, table or graph) and from
`this information the client may determine that it is
`
`14
`
`

`
`’674 Patent
`
`Weiss
`
`5. The computer-
`readable medium of claim
`2 wherein the adjustment
`of the obtained user input
`includes altering property
`attributes used in the
`automatic valuation of the
`distinguished property,
`and wherein the displayed
`refined valuation is based
`at least in part on the
`altered property
`attributes.
`
`desirable to price the subject property below market
`value to sell it quickly (as in case Z). Using the initial
`client entered subject property information (e.g., 13
`Oak Street, Lexington, Mass., single family home, 3
`bedroom, 1.5 bath), the PT system tasks the property
`valuation system 160 to return a property valuation
`(e.g., $230K).” Id. at ¶282.
`
`“Accordingly, the client seller enters a set of subject
`property information, corresponding to typical listing
`information for its subject property. Preferably, the
`client seller enters a proposed list price for the subject
`property. All of the subject property information is
`editable. Rating and/or ranking may be accomplished,
`at least in part, by obtaining an automated property
`valuation of the subject property and comparing the
`proposed list price to the automated property
`valuation. Changing the list price for the subject
`property typically changes the rating and/or ranking,
`when a criterion is related to price. ” Id. at ¶44.
`
`“The client seller may use the rating and/or ranking
`functionality of the SPR system to help assess or
`determine the benefit of certain contemplated home
`improvements in the relevant market (e.g., the addition
`of a garage, a pool, or hardwood floors or the upgrade
`of a kitchen) by having the subject property rated
`and/or ranked as though those improvements existed.”
`Id. at ¶204.
`
`15. A method in a
`computing system for
`refining an automatic
`valuation of a
`
`Weiss discloses a system that includes a core property
`valuation system and functional modules. “A system
`and method is provided that includes a core property
`valuation system and one or more functional modules.
`
`15
`
`

`
`’674 Patent
`
`distinguished home based
`upon input from a user
`knowledgeable about the
`distinguished home,
`comprising:
`
`[15a] obtaining user input
`adjusting at least one
`aspect of information
`about the distinguished
`home used in the
`automatic valuation of the
`distinguished home;
`
`Weiss
`
`Variously, the modules facilitate automatic adjustment
`of an equity line of credit, generation and management
`of an equity credit card, unsecured debt conversion to
`an equity loan, rapid closing of a conforming loan,
`automated PMI
`removal, property rating and/or
`ranking for buyers and sellers, evaluation and alerts,
`relocation alerts,
`relocation forecasting, property
`tradeoffs, and broker evaluations.” Id. at Abstract; se e
`also Fig. 1A; ¶81.
`
`“A seller-based property rating and ranking (SPR)
`system and method in accordance with the present
`invention provides a client seller with the ability to
`analyze its property (i.e., a subject property) in terms
`of current
`(or historical),
`substantially objective
`market data. By doing so,
`the client seller can
`determine how its subject property would be rated
`and/or ranked at different price points or with different
`features, which may prove useful in determining a list
`price for the subject property. ” Id. at ¶43.
`
`“Accordingly, the client seller enters a set of subject
`property information, corresponding to typical listing
`information for its subject property. Preferably, the
`client seller enters a proposed list price for the subject
`property. All of the subject property information is
`editable. ” Id. at ¶44.
`
`“The client seller may use the rating and/or ranking
`functionality of the SPR system to help assess or
`determine the benefit of certain contemplated home
`improvements in the relevant market (e.g., the addition
`of a garage, a pool, or hardwood floors or the upgra