IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Cheng et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,970,674 Attorney Docket No.: 30693-0090IP1
`Issue Date:
`June 28, 2011
`Appl. Serial No.: 11/347,024
`Filing Date:
`February 3, 2006
`Title:
`AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINING A CURRENT VALUE FOR A REAL
`ESTATE PROPERTY, SUCH AS A HOME, THAT IS TAILORED TO INPUT FROM A HU-
`MAN USER, SUCH AS ITS OWNER
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,970,674
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................................... 1 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................ 1 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................... 1 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................................... 1 
`D.  Service Information ................................................................................................... 2 
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................ 2 
`II. 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 ........................................ 2 
`III. 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................ 2 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested .............................. 2 
`C.  Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) .............................................. 4 
`IV. 
`SUMMARY OF THE `674 PATENT ............................................................................ 5 
`A.  Brief Description ....................................................................................................... 5 
`B.  Summary of the Prosecution History of the `674 Patent ....................................... 6 
`V. 
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
``674 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................ 7 
`MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED ......................................................................... 11 
`A.  Dugan in view of Kim .............................................................................................. 11 
`B.  Dugan ....................................................................................................................... 45 
`C.  Hough ....................................................................................................................... 48 
`D.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of Khedkar ......................................... 52 
`E.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of Shinoda ......................................... 53 
`F.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of Kilgore ........................................... 55 
`G.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of McNanus ....................................... 55 
`H.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of Kilgore and McNanus ................... 56 
`I.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of IRS Pub946 (2004) ........................ 58 
`J.  Dugan in view of Kim and further in view of Sklarz ............................................. 58 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 59 
`
`
`VI. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS
`
`
`Appendix A. (MICROSTRATEGY 1001) U.S. Patent No. 7,970,674 to Cheng
`
`Appendix B. (MICROSTRATEGY 1002) Prosecution History of the `674 patent to Cheng
`
`Appendix C. (MICROSTRATEGY 1003) U.S. Patent No. 5,857,174 to Dugan (“Dugan”)
`
`Appendix D. (MICROSTRATEGY 1004) U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2005/0154657 to Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`Appendix E. (MICROSTRATEGY 1005) U.S. Patent No. 6,609,118 to Khedkar (“Khedkar”)
`
`Appendix F. (MICROSTRATEGY 1006) U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2004/0049440 to Shinoda et al. (“Shinoda”)
`
`Appendix G. (MICROSTRATEGY 1007) U.S. Patent No. 6,877,015 to Kilgore et al. (“Kil-
`gore”)
`
`Appendix H. (MICROSTRATEGY 1008) U.S. Patent No. 6,401,070 to McNanus et al.
`(“McNanus”)
`
`(MICROSTRATEGY 1009) Internal Revenue Service Publication 946, How
`Appendix I.
`To Depreciate Property, 2004 (“IRS Pub. 946”)
`
`(MICROSTRATEGY 1010) Appendix J. U.S. Patent Application Publication
`Appendix J.
`No. 2002/0087389 to Sklarz et al. (“Sklarz”)
`
`Appendix K. (MICROSTRATEGY 1011) U.S. Patent No. 5,414,621 to Hough et al.
`(“Hough”).
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`MicroStrategy Inc. (“Petitioner” or “MicroStrategy”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,970,674 (the `674 patent). In the following, MicroStrategy demonstrates that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that MicroStrategy will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in this petition.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`A.
`Petitioner, MicroStrategy Inc., is the real party-in-interest for the instant petition.
`
`
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`Petitioner is not aware of any disclaimers or reexamination certificates for the `674
`
`patent nor is Petitioner is aware of any pending prosecution concerning the `674 patent.
`
`Petitioner is, however, aware of a certificate of correction for the `674 patent.
`
`Petitioner is aware that the `674 patent has been involved in litigation. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner understands that the `674 patent has been involved in a case pending in U.S. Dis-
`
`trict Court for the Western District of Washington, stylized Zillow, Inc. v. Trulia, Inc. (Docket
`
`No.
`
`2:12cv1549).
`
`
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`W. Karl Renner, Reg No. 41,265
`P.O. Box 1022
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz, Reg. No. 50,620
`P.O. Box 1022
`
`1
`
`

`

`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`
`Service Information
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the counsel at the address provided in Section I(C) of
`
`this Petition. Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email at APSI@fr.com
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`II.
`The Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit Ac-
`
`count No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and further author-
`
`izes payment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`A.
`Petitioner certifies that the `674 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`B.
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-40 of the `674 patent on the grounds set forth in
`
`the table below and requests that each of the claims be found unpatentable. An explanation
`
`of how claims 1-40 are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified below, including
`
`the identification of where each element can be found in the prior art patents or publications
`
`and the relevance of the prior art reference, is provided in the form of detailed claim charts.
`
`Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
``674 Pa-
`tent
`Claims
`1, 2, 5-10,
`13-18, 25-
`
`Basis for Rejection
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim
`
`2
`
`

`

`Basis for Rejection
`
`Ground
`
``674 Pa-
`tent
`Claims
`27, 29-33,
`35-37, 39,
`and 40
`2 and 15
`Ground 2
`2 and 15
`Ground 3
`Ground 4 3 and 4
`
`Anticipated under 102(b) by Dugan
`Anticipated under 102(b) by Hough
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of Khedkar
`11 and 12 Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of Shinoda
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of Kilgore
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of McNanus
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of Kilgore and McNanus
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of IRS Pub946 (2004)
`Ground 10 34 and 38 Obvious under § 103(a) by Dugan in view of Kim and further
`in view of Sklarz
`
`Ground 5
`
`Ground 6
`
`Ground 7
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Ground 8
`
`21-24
`
`Ground 9
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`Dugan qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Dugan was issued on
`
`January 5, 1999, which is more than one year prior to the February 3, 2006 earliest effective
`
`filing date of the `674 patent. Kim, a published patent application, qualifies as prior art un-
`
`der 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Kim was filed on January 12, 2005, which is prior to the
`
`February 3, 2006 earliest effective filing date of the `674 patent. Khedkar qualifies as prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Khedkar was issued as a U.S. Patent on Aug. 19,
`
`2003, which is more than one year prior to the February 3, 2006 earliest effective filing date
`
`of the `674 patent. Shinoda qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Shi-
`
`3
`
`

`

`noda has a publication date of March 11, 2004, which is more than one year prior to the
`
`February 3, 2006 earliest effective filing date of the `674 patent. Kilgore a published patent
`
`application, qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the Kilgore reference
`
`was filed on September 4, 1998, which is prior to the February 3, 2006 earliest effective fil-
`
`ing date of the `674 patent. McNanus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) be-
`
`cause McNanus was issued as a U.S. Patent on June 3, 2002, which is more than one year
`
`prior to the February 3, 2006 earliest effective filing date of the `674 patent. The IRS Pub-
`
`946 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the publication was published in
`
`2004, more than one year prior to the February 3, 2006 earliest effective filing date of the
`
``674 patent. Sklarz qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Sklarz was pub-
`
`lished July 4, 2002, which is more than one year prior to the February 3, 2006 earliest effec-
`
`tive filing date of the `674 patent. Hough qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) be-
`
`cause Hough was issued May 9, 1995, which is more than one year prior to the February 3,
`
`2006 earliest effective filing date of the `674 patent.
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`C.
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This means that the
`
`words of the claim are given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Petitioner submits, for the
`
`purposes of the IPR only, that the claim terms are presumed to take on their broadest rea-
`
`4
`
`

`

`sonable interpretation in view of the specification of the `674 patent. 1
`
`
`
`Under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard, claims 1-40 of the `674 pa-
`
`tent are not patentable in view of the prior art.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE `674 PATENT
`
`Brief Description
`A.
`The `674 patent is generally directed to on-line valuation of real estate property. The
`
``674 patent includes forty claims. Claims 1, 2, and 15 are independent claims.
`
`The `674 patent describes “procuring information about a distinguished property
`
`…that is usable to refine an automatic valuation of the distinguished property.” Appendix A,
`
`at Abstract. For example, the `674 patent describes “display[ing] information about the dis-
`
`tinguished property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property” and “ob-
`
`tain[ing] user input from the owner adjusting at least one aspect of information about the dis-
`
`tinguished property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property.” Id. at
`
`Abstract. Thereafter, the `674 patent describes “display[ing] to the owner a refined valua-
`
`tion of the distinguished property that is based on the adjustment of the obtained user in-
`
`put.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`
`
`1 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from PTO proceed-
`
`ings, any interpretation of claim terms in this IPR is not binding upon Petitioner in any litiga-
`
`tion related to the ’674 patent. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Summary of the Prosecution History of the `674 Patent
`B.
`During the prosecution of the `674 patent, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allow-
`
`ance on April 18, 2011. The Examiner’s Notice of Allowance followed a March 4,
`
`2011response to a Final Office Action. In this response, the Applicant referenced an in per-
`
`son interview with the Examiner, stating that “Examiners Basit and Trammell acknowledged
`
`[during the in person interview on March 3, 2011] that the cited references fail to disclose
`
`applying a valuation model to attributes of a subject home as updated in accordance with
`
`input from the home's owner to obtain a valuation for the subject home as is recited by each
`
`of the independent claims.” Appendix B, at 48 (Emphasis in the original).
`
`Notably, the prosecution history of the `674 patent (excerpt attacheds as Appendix
`
`B) does not include an interview summary issued by the Examiner regarding the personal
`
`interview that allegedly took place on March, 3, 2011. Further, the Notice of Allowance is-
`
`sued on April 18, 2011 provides no statement of the Examiner’s reasons for allowance. Ap-
`
`pendix B, at 14-20. Thus, based on the prosecution history of the `674 patent, the purport-
`
`ed claim limitation of “applying a valuation model to attributes of a subject home as updated
`
`in accordance with input from the home's owner to obtain a valuation for the subject home”
`
`appears to be the sole reason for the allowance of the `674 patent. However, this feature,
`
`in addition to the other features recited in the claims of the `674 patent, was well known in
`
`the prior art as demonstrated by prior art references that were not considered during the
`
`prosecution of the `674 patent. As such, the Notice of Allowance was issued prematurely
`
`6
`
`

`

`based on a limitation that was well known in the prior art and that was disclosed by prior art
`
`references that were not considered during prosecution.
`
`For example, Dugan, which was not before the Office during prosecution, describes
`
`a seller (i.e., an owner of a home) interacting with a system 10 that allows the seller to "ap-
`
`praise a subject property, step 32, or revise a record stored on the database 24, step 36."
`
`Dugan, col. 7, ll. 46-47. As illustrated in Fig. 3 of Dugan, a seller interacting with system 10
`
`may iteratively appraise a subject property, revise a record of related to the subject proper-
`
`ty, and re-appraise the subject property to account for the revision to the record. To re-
`
`appraise the subject property, Dugan teaches a valuation model must be applied that fac-
`
`tors in the revision to the record.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`OF THE `674 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`As detailed in the claim charts below, through the various identified prior art refer-
`
`ences or arguments that were not before the Examiner during prosecution of the `674 pa-
`
`tent, all limitations (structural, process, or functional) of claims 1-40 of the `674 patent were
`
`well known in the prior art. As demonstrated by various combinations of prior art, the `674
`
`patent claims merely recite the combination of “prior art elements according to known meth-
`
`ods to yield predictable results” and/or the “[u]se of known technique[s] to improve similar
`
`devices (methods, or products) in the same way.” MPEP § 2143(A, C).
`
`Claim 1. Independent claim 1 of the `674 patent recites a method “for automatically
`
`7
`
`

`

`determining a valuation for a subject home in response to input from an owner of the home.”
`
`Appendix A, at claim 1. Dugan describes various techniques that its system may use to ap-
`
`praise a property both before and after a revision has been made to one or more records
`
`related to the property. However, Dugan also contemplates that its system can be modified
`
`to use other appraisal techniques to appraise a property both before and after a revision has
`
`been made to one or more records related to the property. In fact, Dugan suggests that
`
`“[t]he system may be used . . . in conjunction with other appraisal techniques . . . .” Dugan,
`
`col. 14, ll. 63-64; see also Dugan, col. 15, ll. 11-12 (“all suitable modifications . . . may be
`
`resorted to . . . .”).
`
`Meanwhile, Kim describes an appraisal technique that may be integrated with
`
`Dugan’s system, consistent with Dugan’s overt proscription for “use … in conjunction with
`
`other appraisal techniques.” Id. Specifically, Kim describes “a system 100 for providing
`
`property appraisals” that, among other things, allows a user to add information about indi-
`
`vidual property characteristics. See Kim, ¶¶ 32, 36 These individual property characteris-
`
`tics are then individually weighted and included in a formula utilized by Kim’s system to es-
`
`timate the value of a subject property. See Kim, ¶¶ 32, 36, 75-77. Thus, as a consequence
`
`of enabling the user to enter information about individual property characteristics, the sys-
`
`tem described by Kim provides “a more accurate valuation for the subject property . . . .”
`
`Kim, ¶ 7. Based on Kim’s provision of an appraisal technique designed to enable more ac-
`
`curate property valuation, and based on Dugan’s suggestion for integration of “other ap-
`
`8
`
`

`

`praisal techniques” of the type disclosed by Kim, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`be motivated to modify Dugan’s iterative appraisal and record revision system by incorporat-
`
`ing the revision and appraisal processes described by Kim, thereby arriving at the limitations
`
`of claim 1. Indeed, Dugan declares that its primary objective is to “provide a real estate ap-
`
`praisal method that is highly … trustworthy,” and Kim likewise states that its aim is to pro-
`
`vide “a more accurate valuation for [a] subject property.” Dugan, col. 4 ll. 31-33; Kim ¶7.
`
`Accordingly, as further described in more detail in the claim charts below in which
`
`claim language is set forth in bold font, there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 of the
`
``674 patent is unpatentable.
`
`Claims 2-40. Claim 2 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing contents
`
`that cause a computing system to procure information about a property from its owner, and
`
`using that information to refine an automatic valuation of the property. Appendix A at claim
`
`2. Similar to the method of claim 1, claim 2 is said to recite displaying a portion of infor-
`
`mation about the distinguished property, obtaining user input from the owner adjusting at
`
`least one aspect of information, and displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distin-
`
`guished property based on the adjustment.
`
`Prior art references, some of which were not before the Office, disclose all the claim
`
`2 limitations as well as the limitations of claims 3 to 14 that depend from claim 2. For ex-
`
`ample, Dugan describes sellers (i.e., an owner of a home) interacting with a system 10 that
`
`allows someone to "appraise a subject property, step 32, or revise a record stored on the
`
`9
`
`

`

`database 24, step 36." Dugan, col. 7, ll. 46-47. Further, Dugan contemplates modifying its
`
`system to use other appraisal techniques to perform an appraisal both before and after re-
`
`vising at least one record related to the property. In fact, Dugan suggests that “[t]he system
`
`may be used . . . in conjunction with other appraisal techniques . . . .” Dugan, col. 14, ll. 63-
`
`64; see also Dugan, col. 15, ll. 11-12 (“all suitable modifications ... may be resorted to ... .”)
`
`Additionally, as discussed above, in the response to the Final Office Action filed on
`
`March 4, 2011, the Applicant represented to the Office that all of the independent claims
`
`recite “input from the home's owner.” Appendix B, at 48. As discussed above, this purport-
`
`ed limitation appears to have been the sole reason for allowing the claims of the `674 pa-
`
`tent. However, independent claim 15 does not recite “input from the home’s owner.” In-
`
`stead, independent claim 15 recites “input from a user knowledgeable about the distin-
`
`guished home.” Appendix A, at claim 15. A “user knowledgeable about the distinguished
`
`home” need not necessarily reference the home’s owner. Rather, such a user can be any-
`
`one who is knowledgeable about the property. Thus, to the extent that the claims of the
`
``674 patent were allowed based on inclusion of the following limitation, “input from the
`
`home’s owner,” the allowance of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims was im-
`
`proper. Accordingly, at least independent claim 15 and its dependent claims are unpatent-
`
`able.
`
`Accordingly, as described in more detail in the claim charts below, in which claim
`
`language is set forth in bold font, the prior art references teach each and every limitation of
`
`10
`
`

`

`claims 2-40 of the `674 patent.
`
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH
`REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
`In this Section, Requester proposes various grounds of rejection for claims 1-40, jus-
`
`tifying reexamination. Requester presents claim charts that compare the claim language,
`
`construed using a construction that is the broadest reasonable construction, with the disclo-
`
`sure of the prior art, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Dugan in view of Kim
`A.
`As shown in the Claim Chart below, each and every limitation of claims 1, 2, 5-10,
`
`13-18, 25-27, 29-33, 35-37, 39, and 40 of the ‘674 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being obvious over Dugan in view of Kim.
`
`1. A method in a computing system for automatically determining a valuation for a
`subject home in response to input from an owner of the home, comprising:
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses a method in a computing system for automati-
`cally determining a valuation for a subject home in response to input from an owner of the
`home.
` Specifically, Dugan describes a “computer-implemented method for appraising real es-
`tate” that "can be relied upon by sellers, buyers, appraisers, bankers, investors and the
`like." Dugan, col. 1, ll. 9-10 and col. 4, ll. 33-34 (emphasis added). Dugan describes that a
`seller (i.e., an owner of a home) may interact with a system 10 that allows the seller to "ap-
`praise a subject property, step 32, or revise a record stored on the database 24, step 36."
`Dugan, col. 7, ll. 46-47. FIG. 3 of Dugan illustrates the overall operation and framework of
`Dugan’s appraisal system 10. As illustrated in FIG. 3, a seller interacting with system 10
`may iteratively appraise a subject property, revise a record related to the subject property,
`and re-appraise the subject property to account for the revision to the record.
`Dugan describes various techniques that its system may use to appraise a property both
`before and after a revision has been made to one or more records related to the property.
`However, Dugan also contemplates that its system can be modified to use other appraisal
`techniques to appraise a property both before and after a revision has been made to one or
`more records related to the property. In fact, Dugan suggests that “[t]he system may be
`
`11
`
`

`

`used . . . in conjunction with other appraisal techniques . . . .” Dugan, col. 14, ll. 63-64; see
`also Dugan, col. 15, ll. 11-12 (“all suitable modifications . . . may be resorted to . . . .”)
` Meanwhile, Kim describes an appraisal technique that may be integrated with Dugan’s
`system, consistent with Dugan’s overt proscription for “use … in conjunction with other ap-
`praisal techniques.” Id. Specifically, Kim describes “a system 100 for providing property
`appraisals” that, among other things, allows a user to add information about individual prop-
`erty characteristics. See Kim, ¶¶ 32, 36 These individual property characteristics are then
`individually weighted and included in a formula utilized by Kim’s system to estimate the val-
`ue of a subject property. See Kim, ¶¶ 32, 36, 75-77. Thus, as a consequence of enabling
`the user to enter information about individual property characteristics, the system described
`by Kim provides “a more accurate valuation for the subject property . . . .” Kim, ¶ 7.
` It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the iterative ap-
`praisal and record revision system described by Dugan by incorporating the revision and
`appraisal processes described by Kim. For one, Dugan explicitly encourages using its sys-
`tem “in conjunction with other appraisal techniques . . . .” Dugan, col. 14, ll. 63-64. Second-
`ly, Dugan declares that its primary objective is to “provide a real estate appraisal method
`that is highly . . . trustworthy,” and, by enabling a user to enter information about individual
`property characteristics, the proposed combination with Kim affords a person of ordinary
`skill in the art the opportunity to take advantage of Kim’s “more accurate valuation for the
`subject property” while also enjoying the benefits of Dugan. Dugan, col. 4, ll. 31-33; Kim, ¶
`7.
` As one example of how Dugan’s iterative appraisal and record revision system could be
`modified to incorporate the revision and appraisal processes described by Kim, all or a por-
`tion of step 34 of Dugan’s appraisal and record revision process illustrated in FIG. 3 could
`be replaced by one or more of steps 1406-1418 of Kim’s revision and appraisal process il-
`lustrated in FIG. 14, and all or a portion of step 38 of Dugan’s appraisal and record revision
`process illustrated in FIG. 3 could be replaced by one or more of steps 1404 and 1406 of
`Kim’s revision and appraisal process illustrated in FIG. 14. Any or each of these modifica-
`tions would constitute a "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results.” M.P.E.P. § 2143(B).
`
`presenting a display that includes an indication of a first valuation determined for the
`subject home and indications of attributes of the subject home used in the determi-
`nation,
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses presenting a display that includes an indication
`of a first valuation determined for the subject home and indications of attributes of the sub-
`ject home used in the determination.
` At the conclusion of the appraisal process, illustrated in FIG. 4, Dugan describes that “the
`system 10 will determine the appraised value of the real estate, step 62. . . . The ap-
`praised value is displayed on monitor 14, along with a high and low appraised value,
`
`12
`
`

`

`step 64. Once these values are displayed, . . . [t]he operator will then again have the option
`to perform another appraisal, step 32, or revise a record, step 36.” Dugan, col. 8, ll. 51-60
`(emphasis added).
` Kim also describes displaying the appraised value after completion of the appraisal pro-
`cess. In doing so, Kim includes attributes of the subject home used in the determination.
`Specifically, Kim describes that ""FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate portions 1200 and 1300 of an
`estimated value page of an exemplary appraiser valuation engine. The estimated value
`page 1200 shows an estimated value 1202 of the subject property based on the comparable
`properties . . . ." Kim, ¶ 54. Furthermore, FIG. 13 includes "[a] comparable property sum-
`mary table 1204 [that] summarizes various property attributes, conditions, amenities, selling
`prices, and the like, which were analyzed in deriving the estimated value 1202." Id.
` Therefore, Dugan in combination with Kim discloses presenting a display (e.g., the "value
`page" described by Kim) that includes an indication of a first valuation determined for the
`subject home and indications of attributes of the subject home used in the determination
`(e.g., summary table 1204 shown in FIGS. 12 and 13).
`
`the indicated valuation being determined by applying to the indicated attributes a ge-
`ographically-specific home valuation model is based upon a plurality of homes near
`the subject home recently sold;
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses that the indicated valuation is determined by
`applying to the indicated attributes a geographically-specific home valuation model based
`upon a plurality of homes near the subject home that was recently sold.
` Specifically, in identifying comparable properties for use in valuing a subject property,
`Kim describes that a "user may choose the scope of the comparable search in terms of ge-
`ographic range" to the subject property. Kim, ¶ 46. Upon selecting geographically-specific
`comparable properties, the “comparable properties are then analyzed by the appraiser val-
`uation engine 102 to generate a proposed value for the subject property.” Kim, ¶ 41. By
`utilizing geographically-specific comparable properties, the appraiser valuation engine 102
`embodies a geographically-specific home valuation model.
`
`presenting a display that solicits input from the owner that updates one or more of
`the indicated attributes;
` Dugan describes that, “if the operator selects to revise an existing record, the operator
`selects the record. The request is transmitted by processor 12 to the database 24. The da-
`tabase 24 is searched, and the retrieved record is returned to processor 12, where it is dis-
`played on monitor 14. Once the record is displayed, . . . the operator selects to revise the
`record at step 70, the revisions are entered, step 74. Once the revisions are complete, the
`program proceeds to step 78.” Dugan col. 8, l. 66 to col. 9, l. 9.
` Related to Dugan's disclosure of revising a stored property record, Kim describes that
`"the appraiser valuation engine generates a condition and weighting page, such as the page
`
`13
`
`

`

`portions 400, 500, and 600 shown in FIGS. 4, 5, and 6 . . . ." Kim, ¶ 44. The condition and
`weighting page includes information about the subject property that "the user may verify
`and, if necessary, correct." Kim, ¶ 45. Moreover, the condition and weighting page includes
`"[a] condition selection section 502 [that] includes one or more fields in which the user can
`enter property conditions of interest, such as 'kitchen updated', 'new furnace', and others."
`Kim, ¶ 46.
`
`receiving first input from the owner that updates one or more of the indicated attrib-
`utes;
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses receiving first input from the owner that updates
`one or more of the indicated attributes.
` Dugan describes that after every appraisal and record revision, the user again has the
`“option to perform another appraisal, step 32, or revise a 60 record, step 36.” Dugan, FIG.
`3; col. 8, ll. 58-60. Therefore, Dugan’s appraisal system 10 permits a user to appraise a
`property, revise the record for the property, and re-appraise the property based on the re-
`vised record as many times as the user wishes.
` As described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
`the record revising process described by Dugan with the record revising process described
`Kim. Related to Dugan's disclosure of revising a stored property record, Kim describes that
`"the appraiser valuation engine generates a condition and weighting page, such as the page
`portions 400, 500, and 600 shown in FIGS. 4, 5, and 6 . . . ." Kim, ¶ 44. The condition and
`weighting page includes information about the subject property that "the user may verify
`and, if necessary, correct." Kim, ¶ 45 (emphasis added). Moreover, the condition and
`weighting page includes "[a] condition selection section 502 [that] includes one or more
`fields in which the user can enter property conditions of interest, such as 'kitchen updat-
`ed', 'new furnace', and others." Kim, ¶ 46 (emphasis added). Kim describes that the condi-
`tion selections "may be used as condition data for the subject property" and