Oral Hearing
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2013-00034
`Patent No.: 7,970,674
`Petitioner: MicroStrategy Inc.
`
`
`MICROSTRATEGY 1012
`MicroStrategy, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc.
`IPR2013-00034 1
`
`

`
`Roadmap
`
`• Introduction
`• Claim Constructions
`• Overview of Dugan and Kim
`• Claims 2 and 15
`
`2
`
`

`
`Roadmap
`
`• Introduction
`• Claim Constructions
`• Overview of Dugan and Kim
`• Claims 2 and 15
`
`3
`
`

`
`Background
`
`“Electronic commerce techniques relating to real estate.” See Paper 17, p. 2 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 1:9-12).
`
` A software facility for automatically determining a current value for a home or
`other property that is tailored to input from a user. See Paper 17, p. 9 (citing Ex.
`1001, 2:57-59).
`
`“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.” See Paper 17, p. 9 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:64-67).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Why are we here?
`
`• Zillow is primarily fighting to narrow the construction of a couple of claim
`terms.
`
`• Zillow seeks to replace the claim term “automatic valuation” with a
`term of art – “Automated Valuation Model” or “AVM,” effectively
`rewriting the claim by adding limitations attributable to AVMs
`
`• Zillow also seeks to narrow the term “user knowledgeable about the
`distinguished home,” despite the absence of specification support
`
`•
`
`In addition, Zillow argues that their claims are patentable by alleging that the
`Dugan and Kim systems could not be used by anyone other than an
`appraiser. Yet Kim describes that an appraiser is only one example of the
`user, and Dugan explicitly describes sellers providing input. See, e.g.,
`Petitioner Reply, p. 13 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶ 0042); Paper 17, p. 16.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Claim 15 Language
`
`15. A method in a computing system for refining an automatic valuation of a
`distinguished home based upon input from a user knowledgeable about the
`distinguished home, comprising:
`
`• obtaining user input adjusting at least one aspect of information about the
`distinguished home used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished
`home;
`
`• automatically determining a refined valuation of the distinguished home that
`is based on the adjustment of the obtained user input; and
`
`• presenting the refined valuation of the distinguished home.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Claim 2 Language
`
`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:
`
`• displaying at least a portion of information about the distinguished
`property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property;
`
`• 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
`
`• displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished property
`that is based on the adjustment of the obtained user input.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Roadmap
`
`• Introduction
`• Claim Constructions
`• Overview of Dugan and Kim
`• Claims 2 and 15
`
`8
`
`

`
`Standard – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`• As long as the specification is not inconsistent, the claims must be
`interpreted during examination as broadly as their terms reasonably
`allow. See In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d
`1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`In the absence of an indication that their use in a particular context
`changes their meaning, English words whose meaning is clear and
`unquestionable are construed to mean exactly what they say. See Chef
`America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
`2004).
`
`•
`
`9
`
`

`
`“Automatic Valuation”
`
`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:
`•
`displaying at least a portion of information about the distinguished property used in the
`automatic valuation of the distinguished property;
`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
`displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished property that is based on the
`adjustment of the obtained user input.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`15. A method in a computing system for refining an automatic valuation of a distinguished home
`based upon input from a user knowledgeable about the distinguished home, comprising:
`•
`obtaining user input adjusting at least one aspect of information about the distinguished home
`used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished home;
`automatically determining a refined valuation of the distinguished home that is based on the
`adjustment of the obtained user input; and
`presenting the refined valuation of the distinguished home.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`10
`
`

`
`“Automatic Valuation”
`
`• Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the term
`“automatic valuation” should be construed consistent with the plain
`meaning of its parts to include “a calculation of a value of a
`distinguished property or home performed without human intervention.”
`See Paper 28, p. 7.
`
`
`
`• This is not a term of art. See Paper 28, p. 6.
`
`• The specification provides no specific definition for the term. Id.
`
`• Plain meaning of words “automatic” and “valuation” leads to
`proposed construction. Id.
`
`11
`
`

`
`“Automatic Valuation”
`
`• Zillow argues that “automatic valuation” requires the use of an
`Automated Valuation Model (AVM) and attempts to import non-recited
`features of AVMs into the claims to distinguish art. See Paper 34, p. 13.
`
`
`
`• AVM is a term of art. See Paper 28, p. 6.
`
`• Zillow had the opportunity to amend, but didn’t. See Petitioner's
`Reply, p. 5.
`
`12
`
`

`
`“Automatic Valuation”
`
`• Both Dugan and Kim describe “a calculation of a value of a
`distinguished property or home performed without human intervention.”
`
`
`
`• Dugan: “If the operator is satisfied with the comparable properties
`selected [by the system], the system will proceed to determine an
`appraised value” for the subject property. See Paper 28, pp. 7-8
`(citing Ex. 1003, 8:32-34) (emphasis added).
`
`
`• Kim: “An estimating operation 1416 [performed by the valuation
`engine] ranks the comparable properties relative to the subject
`property and estimates a subject property value based on the
`comparable property characteristics.” See Paper 28, p. 8 (citing Ex.
`1004, ¶ 0093).
`
`13
`
`

`
`“A user knowledgeable about the distinguished home”
`
`15. A method in a computing system for refining an automatic valuation of a
`distinguished home based upon input from a user knowledgeable about the
`distinguished home, comprising:
`• obtaining user input adjusting at least one aspect of information about the
`distinguished home used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished
`home;
`• automatically determining a refined valuation of the distinguished home that
`is based on the adjustment of the obtained user input; and
`• presenting the refined valuation of the distinguished home.
`
`14
`
`

`
`“A user knowledgeable about the distinguished home”
`
`•
`
`In its Decision to Institute, the Board already “construe[d] a ‘user
`knowledgeable about the distinguished home’ to be any person
`‘knowledgeable about the distinguished home,’ and is not limited to
`the owner of a home or someone with equivalent knowledge to the
`owner of a home.” Paper 17, p. 10. This should stand.
`
`• Board should reject Zillow’s attempt to use claim scope disavowal
`• Zillow had an opportunity, in original prosecution and again
`during this IPR, to amend the claims to limit the user, but chose
`not to. See Paper 28, pp. 2-5.
`• The authorities to which Zillow cites in support of their
`disavowal are inapposite, as they regard claim construction
`before a district court, not the USPTO. Id.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Roadmap
`
`• Introduction
`• Claim Constructions
`• Overview of Dugan and Kim
`• Claims 2 and 15
`
`16
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Dugan
`
`• …“computer-implemented method for appraising real estate.” See Paper 7, p. 12
`(citing Ex. 1003, 1:9-10).
`
`• Relies on “a national database that provides sales data for real estate.” See Paper 7,
`p. 29 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:21-23).
`
`• Based on buyer and seller input desirability factors (i.e., IPS values), Dugan’s
`system automates the determination of an appraised value for a subject property.
`See Paper 7, p. 8.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Dugan: Operator Input Loop
`
`• Dugan permits a user to automatically
`determine a value for a subject property
`(32), revise that subject property’s record
`(36), and then re-value that same property
`based on user input/revisions (loop back to
`32). See Paper 7, p. 12.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Dugan: Seller/Owner as Operator
`
`• Dugan describes an “operator” as providing input to the system 10, where an
`appraiser is merely one example of an operator. See Paper 28, pp. 12-13.
`
`• Dugan describes the system 10 accepting input from buyers and sellers, in
`addition to appraisers. See Paper 17, p. 16.
`
`19
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Dugan: Automatic Selection
`
`• Dugan describes that the system may be configured to perform the step 40 of
`selecting comparable properties. See Paper 28, p. 8.
`
`• Once selection has been made, the operator has an opportunity, at step 54, to
`revise the list of selected comparable properties. However, as shown in FIG. 4,
`an operator may refrain from making any revisions, in which case “the system
`will proceed to determine an appraised value, step 62.” See Paper 7, p. 38
`(citing Ex. 1003, 8:30-34) (emphasis added).
`
`20
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Kim: Combination with Dugan
`
`• … “a system 100 for providing property appraisals” that, among other things, allows a
`user to add information about individual property characteristics. See Paper 7, p. 8
`(citing Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 32, 36).
`
`• Relied upon in the Petition to augment the teaching of Dugan, further detailing reliance
`on user-input property characteristics in automatic property valuation. See Paper 7, pp.
`11-12.
`
`• Combinability with Dugan accepted in Decision to Institute (see paper 17, pp. 13-14),
`and not challenged by Zillow in the Patent Owner Response of June 14, 2013 or
`addressed in the declaration of Dr. Kilpatrick.
`
`21
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Kim: User Input
`
`• Any user with a “name and password” may gain access to the
`valuation engine, providing appraisers as just one example of such
`users. See Paper 28, p. 13 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶ 0042).
`
`• A logged-in user of Kim’s system “may
`add additional characteristics to the
`profile of the subject property data to
`improve the description of the property
`..., including special amenities, such as
`‘Pool’ or ‘Storm Windows’, condition
`characteristics, such as ‘Needs Repair’
`and ‘Updated Bathroom’, location
`features, such as ‘View’ or ‘Horse
`Property’, and other characteristics.”
`Paper 7, p. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶ 0036).
`
`
`
`22
`
`FIG. 3 of Dugan (See Paper 7, pp. 11-12)
`
`

`
`Prior Art – Kim: Automatic Valuation
`• Kim’s system uses the characteristics
`of the subject property (including
`those modified/added by the user) in
`a series of automatic operations 1406
`to 1414 to select and rank comparable
`properties. See, Paper 7, p. 12; Paper
`28, p. 8.
`
`• Also, Kim’s system automatically
`performs an “estimating operation
`1416 [that] ranks the comparable
`properties relative to the subject
`property and estimates a subject
`property value based on the
`comparable property characteristics.”
`Paper 28, p. 8 (citing) Ex. 1004, ¶
`0093.
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`Specific Application of Prior Art to Claims
`
`•
`
`• Specific mappings of the prior art to instituted claims 2, 5-17, 26-40
`can be found in the petition. See Paper 7, pp. 11-50.
`
`In the Patent Owner’s Response of June 14, 2013, Zillow only
`presents arguments with regard to claims 2, 8, 12-15, 27, 30, 34, and
`38. See generally Paper 24, pp. 19-38. These arguments are focused
`on specific limitations of each claim. See id.
`
`• Therefore, absent questions, this presentation is intended to be
`similarly focused on disputed limitations, merely incorporating the
`referenced petition mappings.
`
`24
`
`

`
`Roadmap
`
`• Introduction
`• Claim Constructions
`• Overview of Dugan and Kim
`• Claims 2 and 15
`
`25
`
`

`
`Instituted Rejections
`
`• The Board instituted the following rejections:
`
`
`Paper 17, p. 26.
`
`26
`
`

`
`Claim 15 - Dugan
`
`• Dugan describes a “computer-
`implemented method for appraising
`real estate” 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 or
`appraiser may interact with its
`system. See Paper 17, p. 16.
`
`27
`
`

`
`Claim 15 - Dugan
`
`• The Dugan system 10 accepts input
`from buyers and sellers, in addition to
`appraisers. See Paper 17, p. 16.
`
`28
`
`

`
`Claim 15 - Dugan
`
`• At the conclusion of the appraisal
`process illustrated in FIG. 4, Dugan
`describes that “the system 10 will
`[automatically] determine the appraised
`value of the real estate, step 62.”
`Dugan, col. 8, ll. 51-56 (emphasis
`added).
`• Where revisions are made, Dugan’s
`system determines the appraised value
`based on the input received from the
`operator. See Paper 7, p. 13.
`
`29
`
`

`
`Claim 15 - Dugan
`
`•
`
`“The appraised value is displayed on
`monitor 14, along with a high and low
`appraised value, step 64.” Dugan, col.
`8, ll. 51-56 (emphasis added).
`
`30
`
`

`
`Combination of Dugan and Kim
`• Relied upon in the Petition to augment the teaching of Dugan, further
`detailing reliance on user-input property characteristics in automatic property
`valuation. See Paper 7, pp. 11-12.
`
`• Primary objective of Dugan is to “provide a real estate appraisal method that is
`highly . . . trustworthy,” and Dugan explicitly encourages using its system “in
`conjunction with other appraisal techniques . . . .” See Paper 7, pp. 8, 12.
`
`
`• Kim provides “more accurate valuation for the subject property,” with more
`granular input than Dugan. See Paper 7, p. 8.
`
`
`• Dugan’s iterative appraisal and record revision system could be modified to
`incorporate the revision and appraisal processes described by Kim. See Paper 7,
`pp. 11-12.
`
`
`• Combinability with Dugan accepted in Decision to Institute (see paper 17,
`pp. 13-14), and not challenged by Zillow in the Patent Owner Response of
`June 14, 2013 or addressed in the declaration of Dr. Kilpatrick.
`
`31
`
`

`
`Claim 2
`
`• Dugan describes a “computer-
`implemented method for appraising
`real estate” 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
`its system. See Paper 17, p. 16.
`
`32
`
`

`
`Claim 2
`
`• 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
`appraised value is displayed on
`monitor 14, along with a high and
`low appraised value, step 64.”
`Dugan, col. 8, ll. 51-56 (emphasis
`added).
`
`In Kim, “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.
`
`•
`
`33
`
`

`
`Claim 2
`
`• Dugan describes the system 10
`accepting input from buyers and
`sellers, in addition to appraisers. See
`Paper 17, p. 16.
`
`• The Board previously found that
`substituting a seller for a buyer or
`appraiser in the Dugan and Kim
`systems would have been obvious.
`See Paper 17, pp. 16-17.
`
`34
`
`

`
`Claim 2
`
`• Dugan describes that “the system 10
`will [automatically] determine the
`appraised value of the real estate, step
`62. . . The appraised value is displayed
`on monitor 14, along with a high and
`low appraised value, step 64.” Dugan,
`col. 8, ll. 51-56 (emphasis added).
`• Where revisions are made, Dugan’s
`system determines the appraised value
`based on the input received from the
`operator. See Paper 7, p. 38.
`
`35
`
`

`
`Appendix A
`
`(Claim Charts from Paper 7, pp. 12-50)
`
`36
`
`

`
`Claim 2 – Dugan + Kim
`
`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:
`Dugan in combination with Kim discloses 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. See proposed rejection of preamble of claim 1 based on Dugan in
`combination with Kim.
`
`37
`
`

`
`Claim 2 (cont) – Dugan + Kim
`
`displaying at least a portion of information about the distinguished property used in the automatic
`valuation of the distinguished property;
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses displaying at least a portion of information about the
`distinguished property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property.
` As previously described, 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 appraised value is
`displayed on monitor 14, along with a high and low appraised value, step 64.” Dugan, col. 8, ll. 51-56
`(emphasis added). In other words, Dugan describes that the appraisal system 10 automatically calculates and
`displays the appraised value. Moreover, 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 revised record as many times as
`the user wishes.
` Related to Dugan's disclosure of appraising a subject property, Kim describes “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 summary 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 displaying (e.g., the "value page" described by Kim)
`at least a portion of information about the distinguished property used in the automatic valuation of the
`distinguished property (e.g., summary table 1204 of the value page shown in FIGS. 12 and 13).
`
`38
`
`

`
`Claim 2 (cont) – Dugan + Kim
`
`displaying at least a portion of information about the distinguished property used in the automatic
`valuation of the distinguished property;
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses displaying at least a portion of information about the
`distinguished property used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property.
` As previously described, 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 appraised value is
`displayed on monitor 14, along with a high and low appraised value, step 64.” Dugan, col. 8, ll. 51-56
`(emphasis added). In other words, Dugan describes that the appraisal system 10 automatically calculates and
`displays the appraised value. Moreover, 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 revised record as many times as
`the user wishes.
` Related to Dugan's disclosure of appraising a subject property, Kim describes “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 summary 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 displaying (e.g., the "value page" described by Kim)
`at least a portion of information about the distinguished property used in the automatic valuation of the
`distinguished property (e.g., summary table 1204 of the value page shown in FIGS. 12 and 13).
`
`39
`
`

`
`Claim 2 (cont) – Dugan + Kim
`
`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
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses 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.
` Specifically, 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 database 24 is searched, and
`the retrieved record is returned to processor 12, where it is displayed 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. Moreover,
`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 revised record as many times as the user wishes.
` 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 updated', 'new
`furnace', and others." Kim, ¶ 46 (emphasis added). Kim describes that the condition selections "may be used
`as condition data for the subject property" and that condition data "may be used in identifying appropriate
`comparable properties and determining the value of the subject property." Kim, ¶¶ 37, 46.
`
`40
`
`

`
`Claim 2 (cont) – Dugan + Kim
`
`displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished property that is based on the adjustment of the obtained
`user input.
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished property that is
`based on the adjustment of the obtained user input.
` As previously described, 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 appraised value is displayed on monitor 14, along with a
`high and low appraised value, step 64.” Dugan, col. 8, ll. 51-56 (emphasis added). In other words, Dugan describes that the
`appraisal system 10 automatically calculates and displays the appraised value. Moreover, 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 revised 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 appraisal process described by
`Dugan with the appraisal process described Kim. Related to Dugan's disclosure of appraising a subject property, Kim describes
`that "the condition (e.g., the physical and aesthetic condition) of a property is an important property characteristic to be
`considered when setting a value of a property." Kim, ¶ 30.
` Specifically, Kim describes that: "condition contribution scores are assigned to different characteristics of the subject
`property. The condition contribution scores for each property may be combined and converted into a composite condition
`score, which may be used in identifying appropriate comparable properties and determining the value of the subject property."
`Kim, ¶ 37. Examples of the property conditions used by Kim in valuing a subject property include "'kitchen updated', 'new
`furnace', and others." Kim, ¶ 46. The property conditions described by Kim are attributes of a subject home used in a
`determination of the subject home's value.
` Once the appraiser valuation engine 102 estimates the valuation of the subject property, Kim describes displaying the
`estimated value in an estimated value page 1200. Specifically, "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 summary table 1204 [that] summarizes various property attributes, conditions, amenities, selling prices,
`and the like, which were analyzed in deriving the estimated value 1202." Id.
`
`41
`
`

`
`Claim 5 – Dugan + Kim
`
`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.
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses claim 5. Specifically, Dugan describes that an
`operator of system 10 appraises property. Dugan, col. 7, ll. 45-47. See also Kim, ¶ 44-46
`(appraiser valuation engine with condition/weighting page for user to enter property
`conditions).
`
`42
`
`

`
`Claim 6 – Dugan + Kim
`
`6. The computer-readable medium of claim 2 wherein the adjustment of the obtained user
`input includes adding a description of an improvement to the distinguished property, and
`wherein the displayed refined valuation is based at least in part on a valuation of the
`described improvement.
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses claim 6. As shown in FIG. 3, a seller interacting
`with system 10 may iteratively appraise a subject property, revise the record of the subject
`property, and re-appraise the subject property. See Dugan, col. 7, ll. 45-47. See also Kim, ¶ 37,
`44-46 (storing property record with revisions such as 'kitchen updated').
`
`43
`
`

`
`Claim 7 – Dugan + Kim
`
`7. The computer-readable medium of claim 2 wherein the adjustment of the obtained user
`input includes adding a description of an aspect of the distinguished property not
`considered by the automatic valuation of the distinguished property and an estimate by
`the owner of its value, and
`wherein the displayed refined valuation is based at least in part on the estimate of the
`value of the described aspect.
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses claim 7. Dugan, FIG. 3, col. 7, ll. 45-47 (seller
`may iteratively appraise). See also Kim, ¶ 39, 44-46 (storing property record with revisions).
` As was previously noted above, condition data may be entered in the form of a description
`of an aspect of the subject property and the aspect can add value to the subject property. To the
`extent that Dugan describes that the appraisal and revision process is iterative, a user may
`appraise a subject property before revising the record for that subject property with the added
`aspect. Therefore, Dugan in combination with Kim discloses that the adjustment of the
`obtained user input includes adding a description of an aspect of the distinguished property not
`considered by the automatic valuation of the distinguished property and an estimate by the
`owner of its value and the displayed refined valuation is based at least in part on the estimate of
`the value of the described aspect, as recited by claim 7.
`
`44
`
`

`
`Claims 8, 13, 14, and 30 – Dugan + Kim
`
`• Claim 8 recites: “wherein the adjustment of the obtained user input
`includes identifying recent sales of nearby properties regarded by the
`owner as similar to the distinguished property.”
`• Claim 8 is rejected based on the combination of Dugan and Kim.
`• A user of Kim’s valuation process may identify a recent sale of a
`nearby property regarded as similar to the subject property. See Kim,
`¶ 51. This recent sale (i.e., comparable property) may form the basis
`for the valuation of a subject property. See Kim ¶ 34.
`• As described previously, the operator of Dugan’s system may be a
`seller. See Ex. 1003, 8:24-28
`• Therefore, Dugan in view of Kim describes that the adjustment of the
`obtained user input includes identifying recent sales of nearby
`properties regarded by the owner (e.g., the seller) as similar to the
`distinguished property, as recited in claim 8.
`• Zillow makes similar arguments for claims 13, 14, and 30.
`
`45
`
`

`
`Claim 9 – Dugan + Kim
`
`9. The computer-readable medium of claim 8 wherein the adjustment of the obtained user
`input further includes identifying a scoring of the properties sold in the identified sales
`reflecting the relative level of similarity of the sold properties to the distinguished
`property, and
`wherein the displayed refined valuation is based at least in part on a repetition of the
`automatic valuation of the distinguished property in which the influence of the identified
`sales is magnified in a manner consistent with the identified scores.
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses claim 9. Kim describes a valuation process that
`includes finding reference properties with characteristics that are “comparable” to those of the
`subject property. See, e.g., discussion in claim 1 of Kim, ¶ 34 and 51. Additionally, Kim
`describes: "The condition classification can be used during the comparison and/or ranking with
`the comparable properties based, on the relative condition classifications of all of the
`properties." Kim, ¶ 77 (emphasis added). By ranking the comparable properties, Kim is
`magnifying the influence of those comparable properties that are most similar to the subject
`property.
`
`46
`
`

`
`Claim 10 – Dugan + Kim
`
`10. The computer-readable medium of claim 8 wherein the adjustment of the obtained
`user input further includes identifying a scoring of the properties sold in the identified
`sales reflecting the relative level of similarity of the sold properties to the distinguished
`property, and
`wherein the displayed refined valuation is based at least in part on a repetition of the
`automatic valuation of the distinguished property in which the influence of the identified
`sales is magnified in a manner consistent with the identified scores.
` Dugan in combination with Kim discloses claim 9. Kim describes a valuation process that
`includes finding reference properties with characteristics that are “comparable” to those of the
`subject property. See, e.g., discussion in claim 1 of Kim, ¶ 34 and 51. Additionally, Kim
`describes: "The condition classification can be used during the comparison and/or ranking with
`the comparable properties based, on the relative condition classifications of all of the
`properties." Kim, ¶ 77 (emphasis added). By ranking the comparable properties, Kim is
`magnifying the influence of