12:01 Tuesday

Bilski Watch

No squirrels today. Just good ol’ 101 fun.

Several strong candidates to choose from, courtesy of our old friends at B of A, HP, Goldman Sachs, along with a couple newcomers. Key terms are underlined:

U.S. Patent No. 7,493,262 Method for valuing intellectual property Assignee: Syracuse University 1. A method of calculating the value of a license for an intellectual property asset between a licensor and a licensee using a data processing system, comprising the steps of: calculating a minimum value of said license to said licensor using said data processing system; calculating a maximum value of said license to a licensee using said data processing system; calculating a net value of said license by subtracting said minimum value from said maximum value using said data processing system; determining a licensor investment in said license based on said net value and said minimum value using said data processing system; determining a licensee investment in said license based on said net value and said maximum value using said data processing system; and calculating a lump-sum equal return payment which provides an equal percentage rate of return to said licensor and said licensee on said licensor investment and said licensee investment in said license using said data processing system; and displaying said lump-sum equal return payment using said data processing system.

Commentary: Boy, do I feel for Mark Halligan. Recall that Halligan had his claimed method for identifying trade secrets invalidated by the BPAI under Bilski. That was in November 2008. Here, the Orangemen (I know, I know…I’m a nickname purist) have been granted a patent with claims that flunk not only Bilski, but probably Comiskey, too (it looks like the data processing system is completely unnecessary, in that all these steps could be performed as “mental processes”). And this is a post-Bilski, post-Halligan allowance (12-26-08). From a 101 perspective this claim looks just like Halligan’s claim. Even worse, Syracuse added all those “using said data processing system” limitations in order to overcome a 101 rejection from July 2008, which satisfied the Examiner. Looks like somebody just missed the memo.

Goldman Sachs had a similarly crafted post-Bilski allowed patent issue today, as well (7,493,278), with method steps of “obtaining, at the computer system,…”, “calculating, with the computer system,...”, “recording, with the computer system,…”. Not very particular. 101 was never at issue there, however.

---

The most interesting of the bunch today belongs to Bank of America:

U.S. Patent No. 7,493,282 System and method for automated account management Assignee: Bank of America 1. A method of managing bulk bank accounts associated with a plurality of real estate transactions, comprising: receiving from a real estate office instructions to open a set of new escrow accounts, close a first set of open escrow accounts, and update a second set of open escrow accounts, associated with real estate transactions for a plurality of clients of the real estate office, the instructions being received electronically, at a financial institution, together in a batch file; automatically populating a bank account management system, by the financial institution, with batch processing information provided in the instructions; automatically establishing the set of new escrow accounts consistent with the batch processing information; automatically closing the first set of open escrow accounts consistent with the batch processing information; automatically updating the second set of open escrow accounts consistent with the batch processing information; funding the set of new escrow accounts with funds from an operating account belonging to the real estate office; automatically causing checks to be cut, the checks being in an amount due to a client of the real estate office; and generating a batch status report and making the batch status report available to the real estate office directly.

Commentary: One possible machine, one possible physical transformation – cutting checks. But the bank account management system is a passive player here, and spec doesn’t disclose scissors, knives, perforations or other physical cutting-like apparatus… And no, it’s not the same examiner who allowed the transformation from “lumpy” to “smooth” cash flows in 7,451,104. Could that really be it? 101 was never in play, though. Perhaps the examiner was feeling some guilt for letting this application sit for nearly three years after B of A responded to an office action in early 2006.

---

And we’ll close with a gimmie or two.

U.S. Patent No. 7,493,280 Method and system for setting an optimal reserve price for an auction Assignee: Hewlett Packard 1. A method for determining a reserve price for a market, said method comprising: selecting characteristics of said market; selecting a relevant bidding model; estimating a structure of said market, said estimating comprises expressing unobservable variables in terms of observable bids, wherein said unobservable variables are expressed in terms of observable bids by inverting said bid model; predicting a bidding behavior; predicting a first outcome of said market; and evaluating said first outcome of said market.

Commentary: No idea how this one got through. Even pre-Bilski. Wow. Is there a physical transformation from the “unobservable” to the “observable”? And that estimating step has about four different 112 problems by my count.

---

And finally:

U.S. Patent No. 7,490,766 Apparatus and methods for monitoring transfusion of blood Assignee: Neotevic 1. A method for recording an audit trail for a blood transfusion, said method comprising the steps of: (a) allocating from a supply of blood, a blood transfusion unit for a patient wherein the blood transfusion unit is marked with an identifying code; (b) labeling the blood transfusion unit with a compatibility level having patient identification information and said blood transfusion unit identifying code; (c) generating a blood request form for the patient, the blood request including patient identification information; (d) placing the blood unit in a secured location for collection by a person authorized to collect said blood transfusion unit; (e) recording on the blood request form for said patient (i) identification information for said authorized person collecting said blood transfusion unit, (ii) the time of collection, and (iii) the patient identification information; (f) providing the patient with a wristband having patient identification information; (g) recording identification information for the person performing a blood transfusion for said patient;  (h) recording the patient identification information on the patient wristband; (i) recording the patient identification information on the compatibility label; (j) recording the blood unit identification code on the compatibility label; (k) recording the blood unit identification code on the blood unit; (l) comparing the patient identification information on the patient wristband with the patient identification information on the compatibility label, and recording the results of the comparison; (m) comparing the blood unit identification code on the compatibility label and the blood unit identification code on the blood unit and recording the result of the comparison; (n) recording the time at which the blood unit is transfused; (o) comparing the time of transfusion to the time the blood unit was collected from the secured location and calculating the time elapsed between the time of transfusion and the time of collection from said secured location; and (p) providing a warning if the elapsed time is greater than a pre-set limit.

Commentary: Another post-Bilski allowance (12-17-08). Note to Examiner: just because a method has 16 steps doesn’t mean it’s patentable. Perhaps there’s confusion of “transfusion” with “transformation”.

Bilski Watch - Late Edition & Patent-of-the-Day

More of the same today, and nothing particularly noteworthy issuing.  IBM has their usual slew of pre-Bilski allowances but I'll spare you from them.

But here's two that may be of some interest, to E*Trade and First Data.  And be sure to read to the end -- there's a special treat having nothing to do with 101 -- a Patent of the Day.

-aaron

U.S. Patent No. 7,490,061 Solutions Server  Assignee: E*Trade 1. A method of providing solutions for trading securities, the method comprising the steps of:  receiving a level-two quote, the level-two quote comprising a symbol and at least one market participant quote, the market participant quote further comprising a quote price, a quote quantity, a quote Market Participant Identification (MPID), and a quote side;  creating in computer memory a solution set comprising at least one solution record corresponding to each market participant quote in the level-two quote, the solution record comprising a solution symbol, a solution side, a solution MPID, a solution price, a solution quantity, and a solution latency, the solution latency comprising a latency for the market identified by the solution MPID,  wherein creating a solution set further comprises the steps of: calculating the solution quantity for the solution record dependent upon the quote quantity and dependent upon a hidden quantity ratio for the market identified by the solution MPID, and  recording the solution quantity in the solution record; and sending the solution set to at least one client.

Commentary:  I guess if you include a step of "creating in a computer memory" that suffices.  Or so this examiner thought before 10/30/2008.

U.S. Patent No. 7,490,059, Methods and Systems for consolidating financial reporting information 
Assignee: First Data Corp. 
1. A method for providing financial reporting information to a customer, the method comprising: 

receiving financial reporting information for a plurality of distinct financial accounts at a host system;

mapping the received financial reporting information onto a set of distinct financial account types with the host computer system wherein each financial account type of the set of financial account types is distinguished based on a credit mechanism by which an account balance is increased and a debit mechanism by which the account balance is decreased;

consolidating the mapped financial reporting information according to a set of consolidation rules with the host computer system wherein the consolidation rules are defined by both the financial institution that controls at least one of the financial accounts and the customer;

formatting the consolidated financial reporting information according to a set of fulfillment rules with the host computer system for distribution to the customer; and

preparing a summary of the consolidated financial reporting information for distribution to the customer with the consolidated financial reporting information.

Commentary:  Not sure if that "host computer system" is particular enough, but I'll let it slide.  The interesting story here is that the  claims were actually rejected  in 8/2006 under 101 -- failing the State Street useful/concrete/tangible test.  After two rounds battling over whether the claim really did produce a useful result, the applicant added the last step of “preparing a summary”.  This satisfied the Examiner.

Patent of the Day 
U.S. Patent No. 7,488,244  Apparatus for skinning squirrels 
Yep, because "It is well known that when a squirrel is manually skinned without the aid of a device, one must first start by pulling the hair away from a spot just above where the tail joins the body and make a cut that leaves a strip of skin uncut at the top edge of the tail."  Well known in the inventor's home of Cadiz, Kentucky, I guess.

So, for those of you who hate having to step on your squirrel's tail when you skin it, you'll love this gizmo: "One advantage of the present invention is that it eliminates the need to step on the tail and bend over to complete the skinning process."

Practice tip:  This application was filed in April 2008 -- 10 months to issuance, and no Accelerated Examination.  So if you can put in a few appropriate buzzwords in your application, try to dress it up so it can get classified into Art Unit 3643 "FISHING, TRAPPING, AND VERMIN DESTROYING", where there appears to be short pendencies.

Bilski Watch - Midnight Edition

Haven’t even done the “real” search and already have a winner.   From IBM, of course. 

U.S. Patent No. 7,487,425 “Low cost symbol error correction coding and decoding”

1. A method for encoding input digital electrical signals into blocks of n bits and subblocks of at most b symbol bits, said method comprising the steps of:

generating check bit signals from said input digital electrical signals so that said check bit signals satisfy parity check conditions determined by a binary parity check matrix derivable from a matrix of the form H=[H.sub.1 H.sub.2 . . . H.sub.N] wherein each symbol column, H.sub.j, j=1, 2, . . . , N, is a column of M disjoint binary submatrices having b rows and at most b columns and wherein at least one of said N symbol columns has been modified to provide a minimal number of ones in said symbol column; and

combining said check bit signals with said input signals so as to produce a block of n signals having redundancy for improved error correction and detection.

I don’t think there is much question that this kind of abstract mathematical matrix manipulation fails the machine or transformation test (or perhaps even Nuijten, for that matter).  But what makes this case so delightfully ironic is this:  it was filed in May 1993, claiming priority to 1989.  And here’s more: there was a first action allowance of 7/20 of the claims in April 1995, and 19/20 of the claims were allowed by December 1996.  IBM missed the first office action in the mail and fought the second one with an unsuccessful appeal.  Most likely they kept pushing this, rather than just cutting their losses, because the patent term would be a pre-GATT 17 years from issuance.  But they weren’t planning on Bilski…

So, instead of having a patent that could have been in force for 13 years already, by greedily trying to extend patent term they now have a patent with method claims that are probably worthless. (There is an apparatus claim, but it probably suffers the fate that the BPAI has been handing out lately as covering unpatentable subject matter).

Moral:  As they say in football, “Don’t take points off the board.”