Ex Parte Mast

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

12774787 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121774,787 05/06/2010
46129 7590 11/22/2016
IBM CORPORATION
C/O DARCELL WALKER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. 0. Box 25048
HOUSTON, TX 77265
Jason Mast
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AUS920090058US 1 8765
EXAMINER
LIU, CHIA-YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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 JASON MAST
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Jason Mast (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final
rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-15, the only claims pending in the application
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented an architecture for processing level 2 financial
data and, in particular, for expanded processing of financial data from raw
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed October 7, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 28,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 15, 2014), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed September 9, 2013).
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
financial data feeds using newly identified processing criteria and using
newly created processing architectures to produce custom sets of processed
level 2 financial as desired by a particular client. Spec. 1 :5-9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A system for processing level two financial data, the system
having an extensible software architecture and comprising:
[ 1] a computing device having computing capabilities and
capable of executing an extendible software architecture;
[2] a stock feed normalizer for receiving and processing raw
stock information;
[3] an object orderer for receiving a normalized stock
information in a stock feed;
[ 4] a constituent component which will analyze the data
contained in the feed accounting predefined criteria,
and
said constituent component comprising a dynamic key
generator
for creating keys for processing stock information
according to predetermined criteria of a
particular client;
[ 5] a book publisher for
receiving processed data from said constituent
component
and then
formatting the received processed data for delivery to a
client,
the data being formatted in accordance with
parameters predetermined by the client.
2
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Parsons us 4,486,853 Dec. 4, 1984
Williams US 2002/0055899 Al May 9, 2002
Rotman et al. US 2003/0018550 Al Jan.23,2003
Kobayashi US 6,686,908 Bl Feb.3,2004
Carmeli et al. US 2008/0107272 Al May 8, 2008
Claims 1--4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1--4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention.
Claims 1--4, 6-8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, and Parsons.
Claims 9-11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, Parsons, and Carmeli.
Claims 1--4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, and Kobayashi.
ISSUES
The issues of statutory subject matter and obviousness tum primarily on
whether indexing and sorting keys improve computer performance and
whether the art applied dynamically creates such keys.
3
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
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 Claim Construction
01. Level 2 market data provides the most comprehensive and in
depth set of data available on trading activity. Spec. 2:28-29.
02. The Specification provides no lexicographic definition of a key.
Facts Related to Appellant's Disclosure
03. The Specification tends to use the word "key" as an index or
sorting parameter. See Spec. 5:2-14.
04. How the key generator turns an incoming order into a key
determines how the data is ultimately sorted. Spec. 10:24--25.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Williams
05. Williams is directed to displaying large amounts of data in
various forms on a display terminal to improve the ease with
which the information may be viewed, and more particularly to
presenting a large amount of financial data, in real time, on a
computer display terminal in a logically organized manner to aid a
user in evaluating and assimilating the financial information much
more easily and quickly than with prior information presentation
systems. Williams, para. 1.
Rotman
06. Rotman is directed to financial transaction data and systems and
particularly to compiling financial transaction data and processing
such data to provide financial information. Rotman, para. 3.
4
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
Parsons
07. Parsons is directed to receiving a stream of encoded data
comprising a plurality of data groups and selectively identifying
the data messages to be further processed. Parsons 3 :3---6.
08. Parsons describes the particular sequence of actuating the keys
of the keyboard to obtain data with regard to a security or to teach
the device to receive updated information concerning a particular
security. To teach or code the receiver/display device to follow a
stock, the user enters the stock symbol, followed by the enter
button, and then a single letter as a key designating a memory
location. The user can store up to 20 stocks in this manner and
recall quotes on any of the stored stocks with two simple
keystrokes: the quote key and the single letter key corresponding
to its memory location. Parsons 19:50-20:31.
Carmeli
09. Carmeli is directed to providing access control for published
information, and in particular to access control in a multicast
publish/subscribe system. Carmeli, para. 1.
Kobayashi
10. Kobayashi is directed to a key input device and an information
terminal device which perform key assignment by use of
information memory medium, such as an IC card and the like.
Kobayashi 1:6-10.
11. Kobayashi generates keys as metaphoric data entry keys, not as
index keys. See Kobayashi 1:36-2:19.
5
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is to a system, claim 8 is to a method, and claim 12 is to a
computer program product. Each of these independent claims recites
generating indexing and sorting keys for processing the received data and
then processing the received data based on the set of identified parameters or
structure for doing so.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 rejected under 35 US.C. § 101
as directed to non-statutory subject matter
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the claims perform a
transformation. App. Br. 6. All of the independent claims recite processing
data according to a dynamically constructed sorting and indexing key. App.
Br. 6. The use of such keys are notoriously well known for improving
computer performance. The dynamic construction further improves
performance by automating the selection of such keys.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 rejected under 35 US. C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner's
questions forming the substance of the rejection are adequately answered.
Reply Br. 4--5.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, and Parsons
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that:
With regards to the limitation of the present invention of
a dynamic key generator for creating keys for processing stock
information according to predetermined criteria, contrary to the
examiner's assertion, Parsons does not teach or suggest
generating or creating keys. Parsons' invention focuses on
6
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
storing selected data messages in memory locations. Parsons
also performs comparisons of newly stored data with previously
stored data for the person of updating information. Parsons
does not teach or suggest the dynamic key generator for
processing stock information as described in the present
invention.
App. Br. 8.
The initial issue is the scope of the word "key" recited in the claims.
"Key" is one of those words that have wildly different meanings in different
contexts. The Examiner cites a portion of Parsons that assigns stock
symbols to keyboard keys. Ans. 8-9. Thus, in Parsons, the keyboard keys
act as keys both in the sense of data entry keys and indexing keys. The
Examiner does not clarify in which sense the keys of Parson are interpreted.
But data entry keys differ completely from indexing keys. They are not two
species of one genus, other than in the sense of dictionary entries. This is
not a case of breadth, but of which interpretation is appropriate.
If thev are intemreted as indexirn.! kevs. consistent with the meanirn.! in
el _._ '-' el / '-'
the record before us, Parsons does not dynamically create such keys based
on predetermined criteria, but instead requires a user to explicitly enter the
key by physically pressing the key. If they are interpreted as data entry
keys, then Parsons fails to describe the keys recited in the claims within the
context of the record before us.
The Patent and Trademark Office determines the scope of claims in
patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon
giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
7
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
The Office does not import the Specification into the claims. Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369.
Nevertheless, as to consistency with the Specification, this requirement
has been circumscribed as "[ w ]hile the Board must give the terms their
broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from
the specification and the record evidence." In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279,
1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
An interpretation of Parsons's keys as data entry keys would be divorced
from the Specification and the record evidence.
Claims 9--11and13-15 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a)
as unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, Parsons, and Carmeli
These claims depend from the independent claims above.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a)
as unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, and Kobayashi
Kobayashi, applied as an alternative to Parsons, describes dynamically
creating data entry keys. Thus, although here the Examiner gets past the
problem with Parsons not dynamically creating keys, the keys in Kobayashi
are not sorting and indexing keys.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to non-statutory subject matter is improper.
The rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention is improper.
8
Appeal2014-006920
Application 12/774,787
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, and Parsons is improper.
The rejection of claims 9-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, Parsons, and Carmeli is improper.
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Williams, Rotman, and Kobayashi is improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
9