Gautham Sastri

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 5, 2020

2018007315 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2020)

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.
13/427,830 03/22/2012 Gautham Sastri ISE-004 4948
21884 7590 06/05/2020
WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC
2000 DUKE STREET, SUITE 100
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
NICHOLS, JENNIFER ELIZABETH-JO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/05/2020 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 GAUTHAM SASTRI

Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, and 10. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as iSentium
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A reaction indicator in a form of a computer-
implemented graphical user interface, the reaction indicator
combining sentiment and intensity data relating to a publicly
traded asset for use in real-time evaluation of the publicly
traded asset, comprising:
a monitor displaying graphic objects in a computer-
implemented graphical user interface wherein the graphic
objects are generated by a computer based upon sentiment and
intensity data from a volume of social media messages relating
to an asset;
the graphic objects displayed upon the monitor depicting
intensity and social media market sentiment derived based upon
pairs of lexical items in local syntactic context found in the
volume of social media messages relating to the asset, the social
media messages being of at most 140 characters, wherein the
graphic objects are determined by the computer by
ingesting the social media messages, filtering the
social media messages to form filtered social media
messages,
processing the filtered social media messages
based upon lexical databases to form filtered and
processed social media messages,
applying rules to the filtered and processed social
media messages so as to compute a representation of
sentiment values of the filtered and processed social
media messages, wherein each lexical item and phrase
maintained in the lexical database is associated with an
inherent polarity value and an inherent strength value
used in computing lexical polarity and strength values
defining the representation of sentiment values, the
representation of the sentiment values being composed of
a time series of the sentiment values of the filtered and
processed social media messages and a time series of
frequency of the filtered and processed social media
messages,
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

3
establishing a target real-valued time series
relating to the asset, the target real-valued time series
being composed of a sequence of time and value pairs
ordered by increasing time, and
cross correlating the time series of the sentiment
values of the filtered and processed social media
messages and the time series of frequency of the filtered
and processed social media messages with the target real-
valued time series through an interpolation method based
upon time and lag to identify a cross correlation value
indicative of relevant patterns between the time series of
the sentiment values of the filtered and processed social
media messages, the time series of frequency of the
filtered and processed social media messages, and the
target real-valued time series, the cross correlation value
is displayed as the graphic objects depicting relations
identified by patterns between the time series of the
sentiment values of the filtered and processed social
media messages and the time series of frequency of the
filtered and processed social media messages with the
target real-valued time series,
predicting future properties of the asset based upon
patterns identified as being highly relevant based upon
the step of cross correlating and generating trading
signals based upon the predictions.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
McAtamney US 2007/0005477 A1 Jan. 4, 2007
Wanzke et al.
(“Wanzke”)
US 2008/0192069 A1 Aug. 14, 2008
Godbole et al.
(“Godbole”)
US 2008/0270116 A1 Oct. 30, 2008
Goeldi US 2010/0121707 A1 May 13, 2010
Busch et al. (“Busch”) US 2010/0299301 A1 Nov. 25, 2010
Janssens et al.
(“Janssens”)
US 2010/0332465 A1 Dec. 30, 2010

Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

4
REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as ineligible subject matter.
II. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Goeldi, Godbole, Wanzke, and Busch.
III. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Goeldi, Godbole, Wanzke, Busch, and Janssens.
IV. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Goeldi, Godbole, Wanzke, Busch, and McAtamney.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Subject Matter Eligibility
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may, nevertheless, be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme
Court has interpreted § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools of scientific
and technological work, such that including them within the domain of

2 In addition to the rejections enumerated herein, the Final Office Action
(pages 10–12) rejects claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, and 10 are under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as constituting non-statutory subject matter, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-
AIA), second paragraph, as indefinite. These rejections are withdrawn. See
Answer 3–4.
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

5
patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised upon
them. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013).
Of course, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply’” these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). Accordingly,
evaluating ineligible subject matter, under these judicial exclusions, involves
a two-step framework for “distinguish[ing] between patents that claim the
buildin[g] block[s] of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building
blocks into something more, thereby transform[ing] them into a patent-
eligible invention.” Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 88–89 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The first step determines whether the claim is directed to judicially excluded
subject matter (such as a so-called “abstract idea”); the second step
determines whether there are any “additional elements” recited in the claim
that (either individually or as an “ordered combination”) amount to
“significantly more” than the identified judicially excepted subject matter
itself. Id. at 217–18.
In 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101, in accordance with judicial precedent. See 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, a claim is
“directed to” an abstract idea, only if the claim recites any of (1)
mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity,
and (3) mental processes — without integrating such abstract idea into a
“practical application,” i.e., without “apply[ing], rely[ing] on, or us[ing] the
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

6
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id. at 52–55. The considerations
articulated in MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h) bear upon whether a claim
element (or combination of elements) integrates an abstract idea into a
practical application. Id. at 55. A claim that is “directed to” an abstract idea
constitutes ineligible subject matter, unless the claim recites an additional
element (or combination of elements) amounting to significantly more than
the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
Although created “[i]n accordance with judicial precedent” (id. at 52),
the 2019 Revised Guidance enumerates the analytical steps differently than
the Supreme Court’s Alice opinion. Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance
addresses whether the claimed subject matter falls within any of the statutory
categories of § 101. Id. at 53–54. Step 2A, Prong One, concerns whether
the claim at issue recites ineligible subject matter and, if an abstract idea is
recited; Step 2A, Prong Two, addresses whether the recited abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application. Id. at 54–55. Unless such integration
exists, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, in order to determine whether any
additional element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly
more than the identified abstract idea. Id. at 56.
The Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, and 10 as a group. Appeal
Br. 10–16. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), independent claim 1 is
selected for analysis herein.
As to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Final Office Action
(pages 11–12) states that “[c]laim 1 does not fall within at least one of the
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

7
four categories of patent eligible subject matter”; however, this rejection is
withdrawn (Answer 4).
With regard to the inquiries corresponding to Step 2A, Prong One, the
Examiner identifies the following claim limitations as a “fundamental
economic practice[ ]”:
filtering the social media messages to form filtered social media
messages,
processing the filtered social media messages based upon
lexical databases to form filtered and processed social media
messages,
applying rules to the filtered and processed social media
messages so as to compute a representation of sentiment values
of the filtered and processed social media messages, . . . the
representation of sentiment values, the representation of the
sentiment values being composed of a time series of the
sentiment values of the filtered and processed social media
messages and a time series of frequency of the filtered and
processed social media messages,
establishing a target real-valued time series relating to the
asset, the target real-valued time series being composed of a
sequence of time and value pairs ordered by increasing time,
and
cross correlating the time series of the sentiment values
of the filtered and processed social media messages and the
time series of frequency of the filtered and processed social
media messages with the target real-valued time series through
an interpolation method based upon time and lag to identify a
cross correlation value indicative of relevant patterns between
the time series of the sentiment values of the filtered and
processed social media messages, the time series of frequency
of the filtered and processed social media messages, and the
target real-valued time series, . . . [and]
predicting future properties of the asset based upon
patterns identified as being highly relevant based upon the step
of cross correlating.
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

8
Final Action 12–13.
In addition, the Examiner states that the foregoing limitations form the
“analyzing” part of the trio of “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” identified as an
abstract idea in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016), together with the following limitations of claim 1:
“ingesting the social media messages” (collecting); and “displaying graphic
objects in a computer-implemented graphical user interface,” “the graphic
objects displayed upon the monitor depicting intensity and social media
market sentiment derived based upon pairs of lexical items in local syntactic
context found in the volume of social media messages relating to the asset,”
and “the cross correlation value is displayed as the graphic objects depicting
relations identified by patterns between the time series of the sentiment
values of the filtered and processed social media messages and the time
series of frequency of the filtered and processed social media messages with
the target real-valued time series” (displaying). Final Action 12–14.
Still further, the Examiner likens all of the above-identified subject
matter to those in claims regarded as abstract ideas in various other court
decisions. Id. at 14–15 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972),
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2017), Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and Classen
Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec, 609 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

9
The Examiner also states that “[t]he limitation of ‘generating trading
signals based upon the predictions’ is the abstract idea because it merely
computerizes a business method.” Id. at 14.
Viewed through the lens of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the
Examiner’s analysis (see Final Action 13) could be understood to
characterize claim 1 as reciting a type of “advertising, marketing, or sales
activit[y]” — a “commercial . . . interaction[ ]” that could constitute an
abstract idea, in the form of a method of organizing human activity. 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Portions of the identified claim language (see Final Action 12–15)
might also be regarded as reciting a mental process — another category of
abstract idea — because it includes “concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (footnotes omitted). The court cases identified
on page 15 of the Final Office Action (Benson, Intellectual Ventures,
Content Extraction, Digitech, CyberSource, and Classen Immunotherapies),
although they employ a variety of verbal formulations, all refer to claims
reciting types of mental processes.
However, the Examiner’s reliance on Electric Power Group is
somewhat misplaced. Although Electric Power Group determines that the
claim language describing “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” recites a mental
process, the Federal Circuit was careful to point out that the claims at issue
were remarkable for their lack of detail — particularly as to what constitutes
the claimed “analyzing” and “displaying.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1353. The Electric Power Group claims fail to recite what type of
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

10
“analy[sis]” would be performed and how this might be accomplished, and
the claims also fail to delineate any particular technique or instrumentality
for “displaying” the results:
Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond
requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available
information in a particular field, stating those functions in
general terms, without limiting them to technical means for
performing the functions that are arguably an advance over
conventional computer and network technology.
Id. at 1351. See also id. at 1355 (“The claims in this case do not even
require a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing
it.”) (citations omitted). Additionally, according to Electric Power Group,
a large portion of the lengthy claims is devoted to enumerating
types of information and information sources available within
the power-grid environment. But merely selecting information,
by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does
nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101
undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Id. at 1355. Accordingly, the court in Electric Power Group, in describing
the shortcomings of the claims at issue in that case, repeatedly invokes the
caveat “without more,” in order to emphasize the unusually spare nature of
the claims before the court — in regard to the very features that would need
to be more fulsome, in order to avoid the pitfall of subject-matter
ineligibility. Id. at 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”;
“[W]e have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract
processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as
identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

11
of such collection and analysis”; “Most obviously, limiting the claims to the
particular technological environment of power-grid monitoring is, without
more, insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the
abstract idea at their core.”) (emphasis added).
In contrast to the claims in Electric Power Group, the portions of the
Appellant’s claim 1 that the Examiner characterizes as corresponding to
“collecting,” “analyzing,” and “displaying” (see Final Action 12–14) involve
significant complexity — reciting, for example:
cross correlating the time series of the sentiment values
of the filtered and processed social media messages and the
time series of frequency of the filtered and processed social
media messages with the target real-valued time series through
an interpolation method based upon time and lag to identify a
cross correlation value indicative of relevant patterns between
the time series of the sentiment values of the filtered and
processed social media messages, the time series of frequency
of the filtered and processed social media messages, and the
target real-valued time series.
The word “analyzing” does not capture all of the complexity in this claim
language.
Similarly unavailing is the Examiner’s position that “[t]he limitation
of ‘generating trading signals based upon the predictions’ is the abstract idea
because it merely computerizes a business method.” Final Action 14. This
statement, by itself, does not amount to a viable legal standard. Rather than
belonging to any judicial exception that the Examiner identifies, claim 1’s
limitation of “generating trading signals based upon the predictions” would
be better characterized as an additional element, for consideration under
Step 2A, Prong Two, or Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

12
The Appellant disputes the Examiner’s determination that claim 1
recites an abstract idea, arguing:
The pending claims are directed to a reaction indicator in the
form of a computer-implemented graphical user interface. The
reaction indicator combines sentiment and intensity data
relating to a publicly traded asset for use in real-time evaluation
of the publicly traded asset. This does not constitute a broad
idea or a fundamental practice, and does not constitute an
abstract idea as contemplated by the Supreme Court. Rather,
the claimed invention constitutes a real world reaction indicator
embodied in the form of a graphical user interface for the
purpose of using vast amounts of social media data to generate
and display sentiment and intensity data relating to a publicly
traded asset for use in real-time evaluation of publicly traded
assets. As such, there is nothing abstract about the claimed
method and the pending claims are entitled to patent protection.
Appeal Br. 11.
The Appellant’s view that the claimed subject matter is a “real world”
solution would not preclude a claim from being directed to a judicial
exception. Indeed, the Supreme Court has explained that such
considerations do not resolve the question of subject-matter eligibility:
The fact that a computer necessarily exist[s] in the
physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm, is beside the
point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system
(in § 101 terms, a “machine”), or that many computer-
implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible
subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an
applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social
sciences by reciting a computer system configured to
implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the
determination of patent eligibility depend simply on the
draftsman’s art, thereby eviscerating the rule that [l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

13
Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
To the extent that the Appellant relies upon claim 1’s “real-time
evaluation” of “vast amounts of social media data” (Appeal Br. 11), we
understand the Appellant to argue that the demands of handling “raw data
composed of millions, if not billions, of social media messages” (id. at 14;
see also Reply Br. 2) might exceed the abilities of the human mind, such that
the subject matter would not constitute a mental process. However, there
does not appear to be any claim language that might mandate the handling of
such massive volumes of data — and the Appellant identifies none.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error, in regard to
the inquiries corresponding to Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised
Guidance.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong Two, unless a claim that recites a judicial
exception (such as an abstract idea) “integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application of that exception,” the claim is “directed to” the
judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The
analysis of such an “integration into a practical application” involves
“[i]dentifying . . . any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those additional elements individually
and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.” Id. at 54–55. Among the considerations “indicative
that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated
the exception into a practical application” is whether “[a]n additional
element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
improvement to other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55 (footnote
omitted). “[W]hether an additional element or combination of elements
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

14
integrate[s] the exception into a practical application should be evaluated on
the claim as a whole.” Id. at 55 n.24.
The Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter “improves the
relevant technology” (Appeal Br. 12), but does not pinpoint any additional
elements that might accomplish the improvement, or precisely what the
improvement would be.
The Appellant also contends that claim 1, in the manner of claims in
DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
“provides a solution specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,”
because “the present invention would not have been possible in the pre-
Internet world.” Appeal Br. 15. See also Reply Br. 8 (“If the claimed
invention is not rooted in computer technology, it must be asked what it is
rooted in.”)
Yet, “not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges
are eligible for patent.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258. Although claim 1
unquestionably operates on computer/Internet materials (“social media
messages”), the Appellant does not identify any aspect in which the claim
overcomes some problem that is an artifact of the computer technology at
issue, in the manner of DDR. See id. (“[T]he claims at issue here specify
how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—
a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events
ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. Instead of the computer
network operating in its normal, expected manner.”) Contrary to the
situation in DDR, claim 1 relies upon computer technology as a tool to
implement a technique that the Examiner identifies as an abstract concept.
See Answer 12–13.
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

15
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection, with regard
to analyses corresponding to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Proceeding to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. at
56), a claim that recites a judicial exception (such as an abstract idea) might,
nevertheless, be patent-eligible, if the claim contains “additional elements
amount[ing] to significantly more than the exception itself” — i.e., “a
specific limitation or combination of limitations that [is] not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may be present.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
The Appellant (Appeal Br. 13–14) argues that claim 1 “provides a
highly complex reaction indicator in the form of a computer-implemented
graphical user interface, wherein the reaction indicator combines sentiment
and intensity data relating to a publicly traded asset for use in real-time
evaluation of the publicly traded asset,” but relies extensively upon claim
limitations that the Examiner determines to be part of a judicial exception
(Final Action 12–14). As such, the Appellant’s position is not based upon
“additional elements,” as Step 2B requires. “It has been clear since Alice
that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly
more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Further, the Appellant reprises an argument, addressed above, to the
effect that claim 1 provides:
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

16
[A] solution to a problem confronting the present world, that is,
how to make use of the vast amounts of available data in a
concrete, effective and tangible manner. The claimed steps take
previously useless social media data and processes the data to
allow for real-time use thereof.
Appeal Br. 15. Yet, the Appellant’s assertion hinges upon the proposed
invention’s capacity to harness “the raw data composed of millions, if not
billions, of social media messages” that is “useless by itself for the purpose
of predicting future properties of an asset,” such as “the real-time use of this
data through the provision of a reaction indicator.” Id. at 14. As explained
above, the Appellant’s argument is deficient, because the claim language
does require the contemplated massive volume of data. See Answer 11.
Therefore, we are also not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
analysis corresponding to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Obviousness
Among the arguments that the Appellant presents, in regard to the
obviousness rejections, the Appellant contends that the Examiner
erroneously determines (see Final Action 22–23) that the Godbole reference
discloses the following features of claim 1:
cross correlating the time series of the sentiment values of the
filtered and processed social media messages and the time
series of frequency of the filtered and processed social media
messages with the target real-valued time series.
See Appeal Br. 19–24. Notably, claim 1 also states that the recited “target
real-valued time series” is “a sequence of time and value pairs ordered by
increasing time,” “relating to the asset” (identified in the claim as a “publicly
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

17
traded asset”), and the “cross correlating” is performed in order to “identify
a cross correlation value indicative of relevant patterns between the time
series of the sentiment values . . ., the time series of frequency . . ., and the
target real-valued time series.”
The Appellant maintains that the Examiner incorrectly maps
Godbole’s median of sentiment values (associated with, e.g., American Idol
contestant Taylor Hicks in Figure 7 of the reference) to the claimed “target
real-valued time series.” See Appeal Br. 20, Reply Br. 9–10. According to
the Examiner:
The median value, which represents the target real-valued time
series, is composed of a sequence of time and value pairs
ordered by increasing time. There is nothing in the claim that
requires the median not to be a “flat line”. Appellant admits
that the “medium” value . . . is presented along a timeline
(sequences of time) and it represents a midpoint of observed
values (values pairs). Since the sentiment and polarity values
are graphed along with the median value, a correlation is
occurring between the values and relevant patterns can
therefore be determined.
Answer 15.
Yet, the Examiner’s reliance on Godbole’s median value, for the
disclosure of the “target real-valued time series,” would negate the claimed
requirement that the “cross correlation value” be “indicative of relevant
patterns between the time series of the sentiment values,” “the time series of
frequency,” and the “target real-valued time series.” Because, in the
Examiner’s mapping, there is no variation in the “target real-valued time
series,” the claimed “cross correlation” reveals no “patterns.”
Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

18
The understanding that the “target real-valued time series” cannot be a
simple median, throughout the time frame in question, is further supported
by the Specification, which states:
[T]he present system and method provides a mechanism for
cross-correlating the sentiment and intensity data with the
actual fluctuations with asset prices. The present invention
provides two methods to find patterns in a target real-valued
time series by utilizing two other real-valued time series
derived from a stream of social-media messages (Twitter for
instance): sentiment and frequency.
Spec. 50 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the Examiner’s proposal to use Godbole’s median value
(as the claimed “target real-valued time series”) would undermine the
overall goal of claim 1: “predicting future properties of the asset based upon
patterns identified as being highly relevant based upon the step of cross
correlating.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of independent
claim 1, such that we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent
claims 2, 4–7, 9, and 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2018-007315
Application 13/427,830

19
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7, 9,
10
101 Subject matter
eligibility
1, 2, 4–7,
9, 10

1, 2, 5, 7, 9,
10
103(a) Goeldi, Godbole,
Wanzke, Busch
1, 2, 5, 7,
9, 10
4 103(a) Goeldi, Godbole,
Wanzke, Busch,
Janssens
4
6 103(a) Goeldi, Godbole,
Wanzke, Busch,
McAtamney
6
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–7,
9, 10

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED