12:01 Tuesday

Bilski Watch

Too many candidates today to list them all.  There’s a plethora of auction patents, including another one to IBM, that certainly die under BIlski.  But the four patents below have their own charm..  Assignees are McAfee, Trading Technologies, Ariba, and Goldman Sachs.  Enjoy.

-aaron

7,483,861 System, method and computer program product for a network analyzer business model

Assignee: McAfee, Inc.

1. A method for charging for network analysis, and executing on a computer including a computer readable medium, comprising:

(a) collecting network traffic information utilizing a plurality of agents;

(b) consolidating the network traffic information utilizing a plurality of host controllers coupled to the agents;

(c) reporting on the network traffic information to a user utilizing a plurality of zone controllers coupled to the host controllers; and

(d) determining a reoccurring fee associated with the reporting based on a number of at least one of the agents, the host controllers, and the zone controllers.

Commentary: This one is tricky.  On the surface it certainly appears to be tied to a machine (the pluralities of host and zone controllers).  But a good case could be made that those are just ‘extra-solution activity.  The real “invention” here is the determining step, which could be performed even if all the data was collected by hand.  It’s one of those claims that makes you realize that under Bilski, the patentability test has a very context-sensitive angle in order to conclude whether a step is integral to the invention or if it is extra-solution.  I’d be curious to hear others’ thoughts on this.

7,483,855 System and method for automated order entry on short queues

Assignee: Trading Technologies

1. A method for order entry in an automated electronic trading environment having at least one accessible electronic exchange to trade at, the method comprising the steps of:

receiving a threshold value and at least one order parameter at a processor, the threshold value configured to determine whether to send an order to an electronic exchange depending on comparison of a length of a queue in a market to the threshold value, the threshold value representing a combination of at least a particular quantity value and a particular number of orders value;

determining a length of a queue for a given price level in the market using the processor, the length of the queue representing a combination of at least a quantity currently available in the market to buy or sell a tradable object at the given price level and a number of orders currently available in the market to buy or sell the tradable object at the given price level;

comparing the length of the queue to the threshold value using the processor; and

automatically sending, using the processor, an order to the electronic exchange, the order having a parameter associated with the at least one order parameter based on the step of comparing.

Commentary: The only particular machine here is a single “processor”.  Need we say more?

7,483,852 Total value bidding

Assignee: Ariba, Inc.

1. A computer implemented method of evaluating values of different terms in online auctions comprising:

obtaining an interest rate and a period from a buyer for a lot, the lot having a predetermined value;

receiving a first bid from a first bidder and a second bid from a second bidder on the lot, the first and second bids each having a payment time and a rebate;

transforming the first bid into a first value and the second bid into a second value using the interest rate, period, and predetermined value from the buyer and the payment times and rebates from the first and second bidders; and

providing as output the first and second value to allow the first value to be compared with the second value to choose the best bid for a particular situation;

wherein the transforming comprises: determining a factor from the interest rate and the period; and generating a first and second adder from the first and second payment times, respectively, the interest rate, the period, and the predetermined value; and wherein the generating comprises: calculating the adder (b) according to equations (2) and (3): [insert image of mathematical summation formula] wherein: q=1 to total time periods; payment value=payment time-period; and extra time.sub.q,=total time units from 0 to q time periods+payment value.

Commentary: Only an allusion to machine here (“computer implemented”).  Could it be that “transforming”step??  The kicker, of course, is that the Examiner allowed this method claim but REJECTED the system and Beauregard claims under 101! 

7,483,851 Method and system for venture capitalist distribution of stock

Assignee: Goldman Sachs

1. A method for providing restricted security distribution instructions to a transfer agent in a distribution of securities from a Venture Capitalist to a plurality of participants comprising:

receiving distribution information from a Venture Capitalist ("VC") in electronic form, the distribution information including data indicating for each participant in the distribution a name, an identification number, and a number of allocated securities;

importing the distribution information into a database system;

matching participants identified in the distribution information to participant information previously entered in the database system;

associating each respective participant in the distribution information with a contact from which instructions regarding a disposition of the allocated securities to each respective participant can be obtained;

indicating a plurality of contacts to be contacted to obtain distribution instructions for associated participants;

sorting the plurality of contacts in an order of urgency;

contacting the plurality of contacts in order of urgency to obtain the distribution instructions, such that contacts associated with more exigent items are contacted before contacts associated with less exigent items;

storing the distribution instructions received from the plurality of contacts in the database system;

generating a report including received distribution instructions for the participants in the distribution; and

providing the report to a transfer agent.

Commentary: Again, the only thing close to a machine here is that pesky “database system.”  Real particular.

Bilski Watch - Good Bad and Ugly edition

Okay (AmEx), Bad (eBay) and VERY UGLY (JP Morgan) today:

 

OKAY (can’t quite give it a GOOD)

U.S. Patent No. 7,480,633 “Real-time brokerage account application system and method”

Assignee: American Express

1. A computer-implemented brokerage account application method comprising the steps of:

receiving, at a host server, a request to establish a brokerage account including data related to an applicant;

forwarding, by said host server, said data to a credit bureau system for credit decisioning;

obtaining, in a real-time environment, a credit decision relating to said applicant from said credit bureau system at said host server;

in response to a favorable credit decision and said request, establishing a brokerage account with a line of credit for said applicant, wherein said brokerage account is established in real-time via said host server and through a solely automated process;

based upon said establishing said brokerage account, granting, through a solely automated process, real-time access to at least one of: buy, sell, and trade within said brokerage account prior to receiving payment from said applicant for an investment; and,

facilitating, through said solely automated process, said at least one of buy, sell, and trade within said brokerage account using said line of credit and prior to receiving said payment from said applicant for said investment.

 

Commentary: While most of the steps could be performed manually, it appears that the buzzwords of “server”, “real-time” and “solely automated” carried some weight with the examiner.  Then again, the examiner never raised 101 in any of the EIGHT office actions (including 3 Finals) in the seven years this was pending…  Notice of Allowance was pre-Bilski.

 

 

BAD

U.S. Patent No. 7,480,638 “Method and system automatically to remind parties to a network-based transaction to comply with obligations established under a transaction agreement”

Assignee: eBay

 

1. A method to facilitate a network-based commerce transaction, the method including:

recording establishment of a commerce transaction agreement between the first and second parties for purchase of an offering, wherein the commerce transaction agreement is established utilizing a network-based transaction system and wherein the commerce transaction agreement imposes first and second obligations on the first and second parties, respectively; and

automatically presenting a reminder option to the first party that is exercisable by the first party to remind the second party to comply with the obligations of the second party imposed under the commerce transaction agreement.

 

Commentary:  Wow.  The only “particular machine” here is the “network-based transaction system”, which is buried in a wherein clause.  Clearly not a “meaningful limit”.  The kicker is that this claim was affirmed by the BPAI.  Yep.   The examiner rejected for 103, and the Board reversed in May 2008 – post-Comiskey. (there was a dissent, but nothing about 101).  The examiner rubber stamped in September 2008.  Today’s BPAI would almost certainly kill this claim sua sponte.

 

 

VERY UGLY

U.S. Patent No. 7,480,631 “System and method for detecting and processing fraud and credit abuse”

Assignee: JP Morgan Chase

1. A method for detecting and processing fraud and credit abuse, the method comprising:

receiving a telephone call from a caller concerning a credit account;

identifying one or more potential fraud-related problems by searching the credit account data for conditions that match one or more predetermined qualifiers and quantifiers;

presenting the caller with a series of questions and soliciting, from the caller, responses to the series of questions, wherein each question in the series is generated based on the one or more potential fraud-related problems and further based on the caller's responses to earlier questions in the series; and

determining a fraud status associated with the credit account based on a computerized analysis of the solicited responses.

 

Commentary:   Are you kidding me?  “Based on a computerized analysis”??  And of course, it’s a first action allowance.  My initial guess was that this was a newbie examiner, but not so: this guy has been an examiner since at least 1997, with nearly 1,000 issuances under his belt.  But he’s in TC 2600 (communications), not 3600, which is the only somewhat plausible explanation for how this flew by.  NOA came two weeks before Bilski.  Some folks seem to get all the luck…

Winner / Loser Patent of the Day

Today’s big winner is also today’s big loser.

U.S. Patent No. 7,478,064, Nacht, “System and process for applying for and obtaining universal multiple mortgage underwriting approvals”

No assignee info is available.

 

 

1. A computer-implemented process for applying for and obtaining universal mortgage lender underwriting approval for an individual, the process comprising:

 

 receiving mortgage approval application data from an end user device, wherein the mortgage approval application data is entered into the end user device by a borrower;

 

 creating a plurality of mortgage approval applications comprising the mortgage approval application data, wherein the plurality of mortgage approval applications are created without intervention from the borrower;

 

 bypassing a lender and forwarding the plurality of mortgage approval applications to a plurality of mortgage underwriting systems, wherein each mortgage underwriting system receives at least one of the plurality of mortgage approval applications;

 

 receiving at least one decision from at least one of the plurality of mortgage underwriting systems, the at least one decision based on the mortgage approval application; and

 

 forwarding the at least one decision to the borrower device, wherein the borrower may then present the at least one decision to at least one lender.

 

 

Tough to believe that claim 1 is tied to a particular machine.  There’s tangential machines (the end user device and the underwriting systems), but those aren’t meaningful limitations.  Funny thing is that the examiner actually did reject some system claims here under 101, arguing they were purely software.  The applicant changed “module” to “module executed on a computer”, and the examiner then changed “module executed on a computer” simply to “processor” in an examiner’s amendment.  Claims allowed.

 

Of course, the irony—and the reason for the loser status—is that the patentee fought for eight years only to see this patent issue in the current financial market.  Probably not too much commercial value here right now.