Appeal Number: 2006-3365
Application Number: 10/329,921
Claims 1 through 10 and 13 through 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Broerman and Raveis, Jr.
We note that the appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group.
The examiner applies Broerman for the details of completing a real estate
contract using a computer system and data base and applies Raveis, Jr. for the
specific claim limitation of automatically populating the contract with information
from a real estate listing.
The appellants argue that Broerman fails to show automatically populating the
contract with information from a real estate listing, which the examiner admits, and
then argues that Raveis, Jr. is equally lacking.
To the contrary, according to Raveis, data in a database can be
populated from sources including the MLS, and summary reports of
the database can be prepared. However, there is no discussion of
populating a form, let alone a real estate contract form. Importantly,
there is no discussion in Raveis of populating a real estate contract
form from an existing listing. For example, Raveis paragraphs [0108]
- [0113] discuss how "primary inputs are put into the databases
according to functional requirements, security, business rules and user
actions," with respect to Sale Transactions. (Paragraph [0079].)
Raveis, paragraphs [0204] - [0229] discusses "Reports and Forms,"
such as New Listing Report, Listing Expiration Report, New Sales
Transaction Report, Void Sales Transaction Report, Projected
Closings Report, Closed Sales Transaction Report, Deposit
Verification Report, Agent Transaction Report, Agent Roster Report,
Agent Goal Analysis Report, Contact Report, Trustee Account Detail
Report, and Pending Referral Report. Nothing in Raveis teaches or
suggests populating a particular form from an existing listing.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007