Ex Parte Strong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 201612576956 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation