.
`. ..
`,
`.
`,
`UN1ll:.D S 1Al]:S PA ll:.N1 AND TRADl:.MAR1( O1+1(.E
`
`
`
`LNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Ulijtctl States Patent and 'l‘rademark Oflicc
`Acklnss-.-,-: (I()MM|SS|()N]€R 1-"OR 1’A'l‘|£N'|'S
`P.(). liux I4-50
`Alcxmidria. Virgitiia 22313-I450
`u'ww.1Ispl0.gO\'
`
`;\l’l’l.I(IA’l‘I()N N0.
`
`l"ll.IE\'(i l)»\'l']€
`
`1-'|1<s'|'Nm»1|;|)1Nv|:N|'01<
`
`;\'l'l‘()RNl£Y ])()(‘.Kl£'1‘N()_
`
`(.'()N1-'lRM.=\'l'l()E\'a ?_\'()_
`
`l3f295,2?-4
`
`l HI 41201 1
`
`Dennis II. Klein
`
`2(JU2.."\-JD
`
`3288
`
`The Law OITICC of I .z|wreI1ce Fldelmznn
`130 San Aleso Avenue
`San Fraticisco, CA 94127
`
`BISKEBOKNK KRISTOFER M
`
`AR'1'l_'=i\'l'l'
`P.»\1=1-:1< Numm-:1<
`
`2165
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`0711619014
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`l-‘Al-‘L'lR
`
`Please find below andfor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 1 of 57
`PT0l.—9'0A (Rev. 0410?}
`
`CORELOGIC EXHIBIT 1016
`CORELOGIC EXHIBIT 1016
`
`

`
`Application No.
`131295.274
`
`Applicantis)
`KLEIN, DENNIS H.
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`A" Unit
`Examine,
`33*“
`2165
`KRISTOFER BISKEBORN
`— The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE § MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 3? CFR 1.136{a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above. the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS trom the mailing date of this communication.
`—
`— Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute. cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U_S.C_ § 133).
`Any reply received by the Dfiice later than three months after the mailing date of this communication. even it timely filed. may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 3? CFR 1.i’04(b}.
`
`In no event. however. may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZ Responsive to communication(s) filed on 2014-04-21.
`E] A declaration(s)1affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) wasfwere filed on
`
`2b)® This action is non—fina|.
`2a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)I:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Ouayie, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O6. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZ CIaim(s) 1 3 5-13 15 and 18-24 isiare pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is1are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:I C|aim(s) j is1are allowed.
`
`7)E C|aim(s) 1 3 5-13 15 and 18-24 isfare rejected.
`8)I:I Claim(s) j is1are objected to.
`9)|:I CIaim(s)
`are subject to restriction andior election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information. please see
`
`
`hit
`;i1wvrv1.1:sr3to. ow atentsiinit events!
`
`h.*'index.'s or send an inquiry to PPI-ifeedbackf,-Eitisgto.oov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on
`is1are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (1).
`Certified copies:
`a)I:| All
`b)I:l Some” c)|:| None of the:
`1.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`.
`
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`"" See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Atlachment(s)
`
`1} E Notice of References Cited (PTO—B92)
`I
`_
`2) El Information Disclosure Statement(s} (PTCl'SBi'08a andfor PTC.‘.t'SBi'08b)
`
`3} El jmewiew summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)1Mai| Date. j .
`
`4} I:t Other: j.
`
`Part of Paper No.1Mail Date 20140?10
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:21) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Pap fi_d
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademai
`PTDL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`ice
`
`

`
`Applicationicontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AM or AM Status
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Remarks
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Prosecution is re-opened following the Appeal Brief filed 21 April 2014.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, and 18-24 are pending as filed 09 December 2013, of
`
`which, claim(s) 1, 9, and 13 is/are presented in independent form.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`No Information Disclosure Statement has been received.
`
`The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimers
`
`filed 09 December 2013.
`
`Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief or Reply Brief
`
`In View of the appeal brief filed on 21 April 2014, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY
`
`REOPENED. Anon-final rejection is set forth below.
`
`To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following
`
`two options:
`
`(1) file a reply unde1' 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37
`
`CFR E (if this Office action is final); or, (2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal
`
`unde1' 37 CFR 41.3] followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid
`
`notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the
`
`appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then
`
`appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:22) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 3 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationicontrol Number: 13i295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 3
`
`A Supervisory Patent Ex:-1miner(SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below.
`
`Ciaim Rejections - 35 USC § 1'03
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as
`set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention
`was made.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Abel, An exploration of GB architectures for internet environments in
`
`view of Roy (U.S. Patent No. 5,966,135) and further in view of Jeyapalan, GIS fora
`
`Smart City Using GPS and Photogrammetry.
`
`Regarding independent claim 1. E teaches a method for retrieving and
`
`displaying geographic parcel boundary polygon maps (E, FIG. 3) comprising:
`
`receiving by a server a request for a parcel boundary polygon map area for
`
`a selected parcel, based upon a street address (E, p. 11, “Through an HTML
`
`form, the user can request a land parcel by [..] street address”):
`
`searching, by the server, a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database
`
`for the a selected parcel boundary polygon having said street address (E, p.
`
`1 1, "a spatial database query, the spatial data server retrieves the minimum bounding
`
`rectangle coordinates of all the spatial entities having the requested attribute value”),
`
`and along with the boundary polygons of adjacent and surrounding parcels (Abel,
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:23) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 4 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 4
`
`p. 11, "suitable spatial context around the specified feature"), the database having
`
`information about individual land parcels normalized to a common spatial data
`
`protocol (E, p. 10, “ACT Digital Cadastral Database, records of land parcel
`
`ownership”), including polygon data used to describe the boundaries of a plurality
`
`of properties (E, FIG. 3, parcel boundaries are polygons), wherein the multi-
`
`iurisdictional digital parcel map database includes a plurality of tiles (E, p.
`
`1 1,
`
`“Data are delivered in the Drawing Web Format (DWF; Autodesk, 1997)”);
`
`transmitting (ii, p. 11, “delivery to the client") the parcel boundary polygon
`
`map data for the selected parcel having said street address along with the
`
`adjacent and surrounding parcels to a remote appliance having a screen display
`
`(E, p. 11, “applet draws the map [..] in the display"), wherein the transmitted parcel
`
`boundary polygon map includes the selected parcel polygon along with adjacent
`
`and surrounding parcel boundary polygons around the selected parcel (E, FIG.
`
`3, showing the parcel boundary polygons that have been transmitted to the client),
`
`E teaches at least four levels of granularity of query type: block, street, area,
`
`and suburb; each level having an associated DWF file size. (E, p. 12, Table 1)
`
`E does not appear to explicitly teach that the plurality of DWF files are:
`
`arranged in separate service area directories corresponding to multi-
`
`iurisdictional service areas within two or more states
`
`However, fly teaches that the system stores data for multiple jurisdictions
`
`separated into separate map layers stored in the individual map layer files (e.g., states,
`
`counties, etc.) (Roy, col. 1, line 25, “each map picture, such as one representing the
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:24) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 5 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 5
`
`United States (US), may contain several layers of information, such as states, counties,
`
`and streets.”) and further teaches that the data is downloaded on an as-needed basis
`
`(R_oy, col. 2, line 5, “when a user requests to view a map picture, only the map data
`
`required to satisfy the request is downloaded.”).
`
`In light of these teachings, it would
`
`have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the system taught by E to
`
`store files in separate directories based on jurisdiction (e.g., state, county, etc.) in order
`
`to organize the file storage.
`
`E shows a display with one parcel apparently highlighted (E, FIG. 2, lighter
`
`colored parcel near bottom right of Display) but arguably does not appear to explicitly
`
`teach:
`
`the selected parcel highlighted or otherwise differentiated.
`
`However, Jeyapalan teaches:
`
`the selected parcel highlighted or otherwise differentiated (Jeyapalan, p.
`
`633, “highlight graphical entities which matched a particular attribute description
`
`provided by the user”).
`
`It would have been obvious to modify the system taught by E to highlight the
`
`selected parcel as taught by Jeyapalan in order to indicate to the user which parcel is
`
`selected.
`
`Regarding claim 3. Abel in view of fly and Jeyagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 1 wherein the multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database includes
`
`parcel attribute data linked to a non geographic database associated with the
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:25) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 6 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 6
`
`selected parcel (Abel, p. 11, “point-and—c|ick queries for obtaining additional aspatial
`
`information on spatial objects in the display.").
`
`Regarding claim 5. @ in view of fly and Jeyapalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 4 wherein the selected parcel boundary parcel polygon is highlighted by
`
`changing the color of the parcel boundary polygon of the selected parcel to a
`
`different color than the parcel boundary polygons of the adjacent and
`
`surrounding parcels (Jeyapalan, p. 633, “highlight graphical entities which matched a
`
`particular attribute description provided by the user").
`
`Jeyapalan teaches highlighting graphical entities that matched a user query.
`
`It
`
`would have been an obvious matter of design choice to highlight by changing color.
`
`Regarding claim 6. E in view of Fig; and Jeyagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 4 wherein the selected parcel boundary polygon is highlighted by
`
`increasing the brightness of the parcel boundary, polygon of the selected parcel
`
`compared to the brightness of the parcel boundary polygons of the adjacent and
`
`surrounding parcels (Jeyapalan, p. 633, “highlight graphical entities which matched a
`
`particular attribute description provided by the user").
`
`Jeyapalan teaches highlighting graphical entities that matched a user query.
`
`It
`
`would have been an obvious matter of design choice to highlight by changing
`
`brightness.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:26) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 7 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 7. E does not appear to explicitly teach:
`
`the method of claim 1 wherein the server first searches an index of
`
`iurisdictional databases to identify the portion of the multi-iurisdictional database
`
`in which the selected parcel having the requested street address is located.
`
`However, E in view of Fig; and Jeyapalan teaches the method of claim 1
`
`wherein the server first searches an index of iurisdictional databases to identify
`
`the portion of the multi-jurisdictional database in which the selected parcel
`
`having the requested street address is located (Roy, col. 3, line 15, “map viewer
`
`reads the map definition information in the map window file to identify the map layer
`
`identifying the map data needed to generate an initial map picture").
`
`It would have been obvious to modify the system taught by E to identify the
`
`necessary files based on an index (map definition information) in order to only download
`
`necessary information as taught by Fig; (Roy, col. 2, line 5, “only the map data required
`
`to satisfy the request is downloaded.”).
`
`Regarding claim 8. E in view of fly and Jeyapalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 7 wherein the server, after identifying the portion of the multi-jurisdictional
`
`database in which the selected parcel is located, searches that identified portion
`
`for the selected parcel having the requested street address (Abel, p. 11, “computes
`
`an enclosing minimum bounding rectangle, adds a 100—m border, and then queries the
`
`spatial database to return all spatial objects intersecting that rectangle.”).
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:27) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 8 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding independent claim 9. E in view of R_ov and Jeyapalan teaches:
`
`A method for retrieving and displaying geographic parcel boundary
`
`polygon maps comprising:
`
`receiving, by a server, a request for parcel boundary polygon map for a
`
`selected parcel;
`
`searching, by the server, an index of a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel
`
`map database to identify a portion of the multi-iurisdictional database in which
`
`the selected parcel boundary polygon and the parcel boundary polygons of
`
`adiacent and surrounding parcels are located,
`
`the database containing information about individual land parcels
`
`normalized to a common spatial data protocol, including polygon data used to
`
`describe the boundaries of a plurality of properties;
`
`searching, by the server, for the selected parcel in the identified portion of
`
`the multi-jurisdictional database; and
`
`transmitting the parcel boundary polygon map data for the selected parcel
`
`along with the adiacent and surrounding parcels for display, wherein the parcel
`
`boundary polygon map includes the selected parcel polygon along with adjacent
`
`and surrounding parcel boundary polygons around the selected parcel, with the
`
`selected parcel highlighted.
`
`Claim 9 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:28) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 9 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding claim 10. E teaches "avoiding transmission of unnecessary data”
`
`(E, p. 11) but does not appear to explicitly teach:
`
`the method of claim 9 wherein the index comprises a look-up table
`
`associated with the multi-iurisdictional parcel map database
`
`However, E in view of fig and Jeyagalan teaches the method of claim 9
`
`wherein the index comprises a look-up table associated with the multi-
`
`iurisdictional parcel map database (fly, col. 18, line 36, “Name table”).
`
`It would have been obvious to modify the system taught by E to keep a look-
`
`up table of stored files in order to be able to Iookup the needed files.
`
`Regarding claim 11. E in view of fly and Jeyagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 9 wherein searching the index of the multi-iurisdictional digital parcel map
`
`database to identify a portion of the multi-jurisdictional database in which the
`
`selected parcel boundary polygon map and the parcel boundary polygon maps of
`
`adjacent and surrounding parcels are located includes locating a iurisdictional
`
`identifier for the identified portion of the database (E, p. 12, Table 1, query type
`
`= suburb).
`
`Regarding claim 12. Abel teaches at least four levels of granularity of query type:
`
`block, street, area, and suburb; each level having an associated DWF file size.
`
`(Abel, p.
`
`12, Table 1)
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 10 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`E does not appear to explicitly teach:
`
`Page 10
`
`the method of claim 9 wherein the multi-iurisdictional digital parcel map
`
`database includes a plurality of files arranged in separate service area directories
`
`corresponding to multi-jurisdictional service areas within two or more states.
`
`However, E in view of Fig; and Jeyapalan teaches the method of claim 9
`
`wherein the multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database includes a plurality of
`
`files arranged in separate service area directories corresponding to multi-
`
`iurisdictional service areas within two or more states.
`
`R_oy teaches that the system stores data for multiple jurisdictions separated into
`
`separate map layers stored in the individual map layer files (e.g., states, counties, etc.)
`
`(R_oy, col. 1, line 25, “each map picture, such as one representing the United States
`
`(US), may contain several layers of information, such as states, counties, and streets.")
`
`and further teaches that the data is downloaded on an as-needed basis (R31, col. 2, line
`
`5, “when a user requests to view a map picture, only the map data required to satisfy
`
`the request is downloaded.”).
`
`In light of these teachings, it would have been an obvious
`
`matter of design choice to modify the system taught by E to store files in separate
`
`directories based on jurisdiction (e.g., state, county, etc.) in order to organize the file
`
`storage.
`
`Regarding independent claim 13. Abel in view of fly and Jeyapalan teaches:
`
`A method for retrieving and displaying geographic parcel boundary
`
`polygon maps comprising:
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:20) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 11 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationlcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 11
`
`processing by a server, a request for a parcel boundary polygon map for a
`
`parcel having a selected street address, said processing including:
`
`searching, by the server, a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database
`
`for the parcel boundary polygon having the selected street address and the
`
`parcel boundary polygons of adjacent and surrounding parcels, the database
`
`having information about individual land parcels normalized to a common spatial
`
`data protocol, including polygon data used to describe the boundaries of a
`
`plurality of properties;
`
`transmitting the parcel boundary polygon map data for the selected parcel
`
`having the selected street address along with the adjacent and surrounding
`
`parcels for display, wherein the parcel boundary polygon map includes the
`
`selected parcel polygon along with adjacent and surrounding parcel boundary
`
`polygons around the selected parcel, the selected parcel highlighted or otherwise
`
`differentiated.
`
`Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`Regarding claim 15. Abel in view of Fig; and Jeygagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 13 wherein the multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database includes
`
`parcel attribute data associated with the selected parcel (Abel, p. 10, “records of
`
`land parcel ownership”).
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 12 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding claim 18. Abel in View of fly and Jeyapalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 15 further comprising transmitting parcel attribute data associated with the
`
`selected parcel (Abel, p. 10, "clickable features as a mechanism to request further
`
`information about the features”).
`
`Regarding claim 19. Abel in view of R3; and Jeyapalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 18 further comprising transmitting parcel attribute data associated with the
`
`adiacent and surrounding parcels (Abel, p. 11, "suitable spatial context around the
`
`specified feature").
`
`Regarding claim 20. E in View of fly and Jeyapalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 13 wherein the server first searches an index of the multi-jurisdictional
`
`digital parcel map database to identify a portion of the multi-jurisdictional
`
`database in which the parcel boundary polygon having the selected street
`
`addresses and the parcel boundary polygons of adjacent and surrounding
`
`parcels are located.
`
`Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`Regarding claim 21. Abel in view of Rgg and Jeyapalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 20 wherein searching the index of the multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:22) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 13 of 57
`
`

`
`App|icati0nfC0ntr0| Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 13
`
`database includes locating a jurisdictional identifier for the identified portion of
`
`the database.
`
`Claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 11, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`Regarding claim 22. E in View of fly and Jeyagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 20 wherein the server, after identifying the portion of the multi-jurisdictional
`
`database in which the parcel boundary polygon having the selected street
`
`addresses and the parcel boundary polygons of adjacent and surrounding
`
`parcels are located, searches the identified portion for the selected parcel.
`
`Claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`Regarding claim 23. E in View of fly and Jeyagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 20 wherein the index comprises a look-up table associated with the multi-
`
`jurisdictional parcel map database.
`
`Claim 23 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`Regarding claim 24. Abel in View of fly and Jeyagalan teaches the method of
`
`claim 13 wherein the multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database includes a
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 14 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 14
`
`plurality of files arranged in separate service area directories corresponding to
`
`multi-iurisdictional service areas within two or more states.
`
`Claim 24 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for
`
`substantially the same reasons.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`6.
`
`Applicants arguments have been considered but are moot because the
`
`arguments do not apply to the new references being used in the current rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KRISTOFER BISKEBORN whose telephone number is
`
`(571)272-4386. The examiner can normally be reached on 5712722100.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, NEVEEN J JALIL can be reached on (571) 272-4074. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
`
`273-8300.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:24) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 15 of 57
`
`

`
`Applicationfcontrol Number: 13f295,274
`
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 15
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/KRISTOFER BISKEBORNI
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2165
`July 14, 2014
`
`/NEVEEN ABEL JALIU
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2165
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:25) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 16 of 57
`
`

`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 2002A-3D
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant
`
`App]. No.
`
`Filed
`
`For
`
`Examiner
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Dennis H. Klein
`
`13/295,274
`
`1I;’14;’2011
`
`Computerized National Online Parcel-Level
`
`Map Data Portal
`
`Biskebom, Kristofer M.
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`2165
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`APPEAL BRIEF
`
`APPEAL FROM THE FINAL REJECTION OF 10!] 112013
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:26) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 17 of 57
`
`_1_
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Real Party in Interest, page 3
`
`2 3 4
`
`. Related Appeals and interferences, page 4
`
`. Status of the Claims, page 5
`
`. Status of Amendments, page 6
`
`5. Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, pages 7 - 9
`
`6. Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal, page 10
`
`7. Argument, pages 11- 25
`
`A. Summary of the Argument, page 11
`
`(1) KSR v. Teleflex and the Standard of Obviousness, pages 11, 12
`
`(2) The Application of Roy and DeLom1e to Claims 1, 9 and 13, pages 12, 13
`
`(a) Teachings and Deficiencies of Roy, pages 13- 17
`
`(b) Hindsight Reconstruction and the Misreading of Roy, pages 17-21
`
`(c) Combination with DeLo1-me, pages 21-22
`
`(3) Claim 6 and the Combination of Roy, DeLorme
`
`and Husseiny, pages 22-23
`
`(4) The Sequenced Database Search of Claim 9, pages 23-25
`
`B. Conclusion, page 25
`
`C. Footnotes, pages 26, 27
`
`8. Claims Appendix, pages 28-32
`
`9. Evidence Appendix, pages 33-40
`
`10. Related Proceedings Appendix, page 41
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:27) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 18 of 57
`
`2
`
`

`
`1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`Assignee Boundary Solutions, Inc., a California Corporation, located in Mill Valley, California
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:20)(cid:28) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 19 of 57
`
`3
`
`

`
`2. RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
`
`None
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:21)(cid:19) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 20 of 57
`
`4
`
`

`
`3. STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`Independent claims 1, 9, and 13 and have been finally rejected. Dependent claims 3, 5-8
`
`which depend upon claim 1 (or an intermediate dependent claim), dependent claims 10-12, all of
`
`which depend upon claim 9, and dependent claims 15, and 18-24, all of which are dependent upon
`
`claim 13 (or an intermediate dependent claim), have likewise been finally rejected.
`
`Claims 2, 4, 14, 16 and 17 were earlier cancelled and do not form a part of this appeal,
`
`which is limited to those claims finally rejected.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:21)(cid:20) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 21 of 57
`
`5
`
`

`
`4. STATUS OF AMENDMENTS
`
`There are no outstanding, non-entered amendments to the claims. The claims were last
`
`amended by response of August 26, 2013, submitted in response to the Non Final Office Action of
`
`April 13, 2013.
`
`The Final Office Action was issued October 11, 2013.
`
`In response, Applicant and his iegal
`
`counsel interviewed this case with the Examiner in Washington DC on October 8, 2013, with no
`
`resolution reached. Applicant followed up December "I, 2013, with a formal Response to Final
`
`Office Action. An Advisory Action was issued by the Examiner December 24, 2013, maintaining
`
`all claim rejections. This Appeal followed on February 6, 2014.
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:21)(cid:21) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 22 of 57
`
`6
`
`

`
`5. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is directed to a (computer based) three step method for retrieving and displaying a
`
`parcel boundary polygon map (Fig. 6, Figs 7A-D).
`
`In Step 1 a server receives a request (from a user) for a parcel boundary polygon map based
`
`upon a street address (Application, paragraph [0030], lines 1-5; paragraph [0042], lines 1-3;
`
`paragraph [0053], lines 1, 2).
`
`In Step 2 the server conducts a "search of a muirifurisdictionai parcel map database for the
`
`parcel boundary polygon having the requested street address (Application, paragraph [0006] lines
`
`4, 5; and Fig 2), along with the adjacent and surrounding parcels (Application, paragraph [0026],
`
`lines 2-6).
`
`The mum-jurisdictional digital parcel map database which is searched contains
`
`information about individual land parcels (a) normalized to a common spatial data protocol
`
`(Application, paragraph [0003], lines 3-5; paragraph [0027]; paragraph [0028]; paragraph [U044];
`
`paragraph [0072]), the information about each individual land parcel (b) including polygon data
`
`used to describe the boundaries ofeach ofthe properties (Application, paragraph [0045], line 4;
`
`paragraphs [0024], [0025] and [0026]), wherein the multi-jurisdictional parcel map database (C)
`
`includes a plurality of files arranged in separate service area directories corresponding to multi-
`
`jurisdictional service areas within two or more states (Application, paragraph [0043] lines 2-6;
`
`paragraphs [U051], [D059], and [0060]).
`
`In Step 3 the located parcel boundary polygon map data is transmitted to a remote appliance
`
`having a display screen (Application, paragraph [0006], lines 4-6; paragraph [002]], lines 1-3;
`
`paragraph [0031], lines l-2; paragraph [0053], last 3 lines, Fig. 2, box 111, Fig. 4, items 100, 206
`
`and 209, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7A-TD).
`
`(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72) (cid:21)(cid:22) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:24)(cid:26)
`Page 23 of 57
`
`7
`
`

`
`In this third step both (a) the parcel boundary polygon map data for the parcel having the
`
`selected street address, along with (b) the polygon map data for the adjacent and surrounding
`
`parcels (paragraph [0031], lines1—3; Fig. 2, items 100, 108, 109, 110, 111) are transmitted to the
`
`remote appliance (Application, Abstract, paragraph [002]], lines 1-3; paragraph [0035],
`
`line 3;
`
`Fig. 2, box 1 l 1, Fig. 4, box 209), with (c) the selected parcel highlighted or otherwise differentiated
`
`(Application paragraph [0006], lines 5-6; paragraph [003]], lines 1-2; and Fig. 6).
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 9
`
`Claim 9, similar to claim 1, is likewise directed to a (computer based) method for retrieving
`
`and displaying parcel boundary polygon maps.
`
`In Step 1 a request is received by a server for a parcel boundary polygon map for a selected
`
`parcel. This step is the same as that of claim 1 absent reference to a street address.
`
`The next, searching step is divided into two parts.
`
`In Step 2A the server searches an index of the multi-j urisdictional parcel map database to
`
`first identify that portion of the database in which the selected parcel boundary polygon and
`
`adjacent and surrounding pa