Ex Parte Gorelik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 15, 2015

12825505 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/825,505 06/29/2010 Victor Gorelik 1846 7590 10/15/2015 Victor Gorelik 254 73 Street Apt. C1 Brooklyn, NY 11209 EXAMINER ROBINSON, KITO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3695 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2015 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ___________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________ Ex parte VICTOR GORELIK, NATALIA HANSON, and ALEXANDER FURSENKO ___________ Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 Technology Center 3600 ___________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Victor Gorelik, Natalia Hanson, and Alexander Fursenko (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 28, 2012) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 12, 2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 30, 2012), and Final Rejection (“Final Act.,” mailed March 13, 2012). Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 2 The Appellants invented techniques for algorithmic trading. Specification, para. 3. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below. 1. A method for parallel algorithmic trading and overseeing trading activity, running on a central processor and on a number of general processor cores, comprising: 1.1) identifying a list of financial instruments for parallel calculations; 1.2) identifying a list of financial instruments for reference calculations; 1.3) determining a union of the list (1.1) and the list (1.2); 1.4) receiving a set of market data messages through the central processor; 1.5) extracting trading and quote information from the set (1.4) into data series corresponding to the financial instruments of the union (1.3) by using, in parallel, a number of general processor cores that is preferably equal to the number of messages in the set (1.4); 1.6) formulating an algorithm for processing the data series (1.5); 1.7) generating buy/sell/cancel orders according to the algorithm (1.6) by using, in parallel, a number of general processor cores that is preferably equal to the number of financial instruments in the list (1.1); 1.8) sending through the central processor the orders (1.7) to order entry gateways; 1.9) receiving through the central processor signals confirming execution or cancellation of the orders (1.7); 1.10) using the signals (1.9) along with the data series (1.5) as inputs for the algorithm (1.6); 1.11) updating the results of calculations of the steps (1.5) and (1.7) on receiving each new set of messages (1.4). Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 3 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Cushing US 7,613,647 B1 Nov. 3, 2009 Singla US 7,840,482 B2 Nov. 23, 2010 Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cushing and Singla. ISSUES The issues of obviousness turn primarily on how precisely the manner in which parallel processors are used is recited in the claims. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Cushing 01. Cushing is directed to executing trades of securities according to predefined strategies. Cushing 1:13–15. 02. Cushing’s server comprises one or more computers that act as an automated trading agent whereby it accepts orders from clients and manages and executes those orders. Each server, or “agent,” is programmed with a specific trading strategy algorithm and receives trade orders and executes them according to the trading Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 4 strategy algorithm programmed therein. The servers are connected to a plurality of clients over a communication network, and clients enter trade orders through the communication network to the server associated with the trading strategy the client desires to use to complete its trade order. Cushing 1:48–58. 03. Cushing describes a number of different servers provided on the network, with each server running a different trading strategy and having access to various appropriate trading forums. A customer places a trade order with any specific one of the servers according to the strategy that the customer wishes to use to complete the order. The appropriate server receives the order from the customer over the network and processes the trade according to the preset trade strategy algorithm being run by the server. The server then executes the strategized order and transmits the execution results to the customer in real time. Cushing 2:52–67. Singla 04. Singla is directed to processing financial market data. Singla 1:46–47. 05. Singla describes functional units of the system operating on a financial security data stream or data derived therefrom to carry out a variety of financial processing tasks. The term “financial market data” refers to the data contained in or derived from a series of messages that individually represent a new offer to buy or sell a financial instrument, an indication of a completed sale of a financial instrument, notifications of corrections to previously- Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 5 reported sales of a financial instrument, administrative messages related to such transactions, and the like. The term “financial market source data” refers to a feed of financial market data received directly from a data source such as an exchange itself or a third party provider. Singla 5:30–46. ANALYSIS Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention Appellants do not argue this rejection. We summarily affirm. Claims 1, 3, and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cushing and Singla We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis from Final Action 6 and Answer 4–9 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now respond to the arguments raised in the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Cushing fails to describe parallel processing of equities. Reply Br. 6. As the Examiner found, arguments regarding parallel processing per se are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, which only recite performing each of two steps (steps 1.5 and 1.7) by using in parallel a number of general processor cores. Neither step recites or narrows how those processor cores are used in parallel. More to the point, neither step recites that equities are processed simultaneously in parallel. Step 1.5 recites extracting information pertaining to financial instruments and step 1.7 recites generating orders. The use of Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 6 parallel processors in Singla to divide up functions would thus be within the scope of both of these steps in performing such functions. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that Cushing fails to describe step 1.4 being performed on a single computer. Reply Br. 7. Again, this is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not recite step 1.4 being performed on a single computer. Further, Appellants only show that Cushing may route messages through plural servers. This does not negate Cushing routing messages through a single server as well, or more to the point, that each of such plural servers is itself a single server and potentially a computer. Step 1.4 does not preclude additional sets being received on other computers. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that “[t]he difference between our and Singla's inventions that, in our invention, an algorithm is being applied simultaneously in parallel to thousands of data series corresponding to thousands financial instruments; in Singla's invention, an algorithm is being applied to data series corresponding to a single financial instrument.” Reply Br. 8. As we found supra, the steps are not so constrained. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that “[c]ombinations of Cushing's and Singla's inventions can minimize only the time of mathematical calculations by using optimized predefined algorithms. In contrast, our invention minimizes the delay in the time caused by data exchange between the CPU and the GPU.” Id. Such a limitation is not found in the claims. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that “solving the problem of high speed computing an option's implied volatility (or any Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 7 other computational problem) for a single financial instrument is very different from solving the problem of processing data series for thousands financial instruments simultaneously in parallel.” Reply Br. 10. As we found supra, the steps are not so constrained. We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that “[t]his sequence of steps ensures that all data processing, which starts from parsing market data messages and finishes with generating trading orders, is performed in the GPU without any data exchange with the CPU, except the trading orders that are transferred from the GPU to the CPU.” Reply Br. 12. Such a limitation is not found in the claims, which do not preclude data exchanges. As to separately argued claim 3, reciting that inputs of the algorithm (1.6) include the data series (1.5) that are specific for particular market makers, we are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that claim 3 describes a method for parallel overseeing trading activity based on a customer-created algorithm having inputs that include data series specific for particular market makers. A customer can create an algorithm that oversees the behavior of a particular market maker. Fig. 4 of our specification illustrates two data series that are specific for a particular market maker: the positive histograms in the figure present all bid sizes of the market maker ISLD and the negative histograms present all ask sizes of the same market maker. Reply Br. 13. As the Examiner found, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 3 only recites that the input includes data specific for a particular market maker, not that the data excludes other market makers or even that the input can be segregated by market maker. Appeal 2013-000522 Application 12/825,505 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is summarily affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cushing and Singla is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED mls