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. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007