Ex Parte Strong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

12576956 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

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.
12/576,956 10/09/2009 Hovey Raymond Strong JR. ARC920080100US1 3221
67232 7590 11/09/2016
TANTOR TOT RTTRN T T P - TRM ART DTVTSTON
EXAMINER
20 Church Street GREGG, MARY M
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOVEY RAYMOND STRONG, JR., SEKOU REMY,
and TOBIN JON LEHMAN
Appeal 2014-005253
Applicationl2/576,956
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final
rejection of claims 1—18 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-005253
Applicationl2/576,956
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system for
displaying portfolio risk (Spec., para. 4). Claim 1, reproduced below with
the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for displaying portfolio risk by a computer,
comprising:
[1] receiving by the computer a time series corresponding to a
weight and a desirability of each of an asset in a portfolio, wherein the
desirability is a measurable desirability based on at least one of a
building cost, a labor turnover, a transportation cost, a raw material
cost, an operation cost, or other location specific data;
[2] maintaining by the computer the time series corresponding
to the weight and the desirability of each of the assets in the portfolio;
[3] maintaining by the computer a standard time series for
comparison with the time series corresponding to the weight and the
desirability of each of the assets in the portfolio;
[4] displaying by the computer, for each asset in the portfolio, a
quantity based on desirability versus a quantity based on the
correlation between desirability and the standard time series over two
specified windows of time; and,
[5] calculating by the computer a trend information, including a
strength of the trend information, based on moving two specified
windows of time from the past to the point where at least one window
is a most current window;
[6] displaying by the computer the trend information, wherein
the trend information includes an arrow having a length and a
direction, the length representing the strength of the trend information.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1—3, 6—8, 11—13, and 16—18 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Markov et al. (US 2004/0083152 Al,
2
Appeal 2014-005253
Applicationl2/576,956
pub. Apr. 29, 2004, hereinafter “Markov”), Wanzke et al. (US
2008/0192069 Al, pub. Aug. 14, 2008, hereinafter “Wanzke”), Flinn et al.
(US 2006/0287937 Al, pub. Dec. 21, 2006, hereinafter “Flinn”), and Benda
(US 7,970,684 Bl, iss. June 28, 2011).
2. Claims 4, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Markov, Wanzke, Flinn, Benda, and Maag (US
2007/0033185 Al, pub. Feb. 8, 2007).
3. Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Markov, Wanzke, Flinn, Benda, and Maag, and
Brockelbank (US 2006/0247900 Al, pub. Nov. 2, 2006).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.1
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the cited prior art fails to disclose claim limitation [1] identified in the claim
above (Amended App. Br. 8).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim
limitation is found in Markov at paragraphs 42 44, 77, 136—156, and Benda
at col. 4:28—59 (Ans. 9-12).
We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitation [1] requires:
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2014-005253
Applicationl2/576,956
[1] receiving by the computer a time series corresponding to a weight
and a desirability of each of an asset in a portfolio, wherein the
desirability is a measurable desirability based on at least one of a
building cost, a labor turnover, a transportation cost, a raw material
cost, an operation cost, or other location specific data.
(Claim 1, emphasis added). Here, the cited claim limitation requires a time
series corresponding to both a weight and desirability of each asset in a
portfolio. The claim limitation also defines that desirability is a measurable
desirability based on at least one of a building cost, a labor turnover, a
transportation cost, a raw material cost, an operation cost, or other location
specific data. Here, the above citations to the prior art fail to disclose this.
For example, Markov at paragraph 42 does disclose the estimating time-
varying weights, but there is nothing to disclose the use of a time series
corresponding to both a weight and desirability of each asset in a portfolio
in the manner claimed. Further, the cited combination to meet the claimed
combination lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings without
impermissible hindsight. The claimed requirements for the time series to
include the desirability as claimed has not been shown in the above citations
and the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is therefore not
sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the
rejection of these claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections sections above.
4
Appeal 2014-005253
Applicationl2/576,956
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
5