12:01 Tuesday

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.”

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.

Two for Today

Today’s winner is, once again, IBM.  U.S. Patent No. 7,372,373 “Method and system to gauge and control project churn”:

 

1. A computer-implemented method to gauge and control churn of a project, comprising:

o   determining an estimated project churn, wherein project churn includes any identifiable and unplanned changes to a scope of the project;

o   identifying at least one task of the project requiring rework or modification;

o   collecting heuristic information on each task of the project requiring rework or modification in response to any potential project changes for determining the estimated project churn, wherein collecting heuristic information comprises at least one of:

§  collecting a time to complete a same or a similar task in another project;

§  sampling a plurality of times to complete the same or similar task in a plurality of other projects; and

§  surveying a plurality of experienced project managers to provide an estimated time requirement to complete the task;

o   entering at least optimistic, pessimistic and expected time requirements for reworking or modifying each task of the project requiring rework or modification in response to any potential project changes; and

o   allocating resources in response to the estimated project churn based on the collected heuristic information and the at least optimistic, pessimistic and expected time requirements for each task of the project.

 

As 101 goes, I see absolutely no difference between this claim and Halligan’s.  This claim should die under Bilski (even Comiskey – it’s just mental steps but for the words “computer implemented”).

 

And isn’t this method performed routinely by.. like…everyone who’s ever planned a project?

 

Ironic twist: IBM paid the issue fee on 10/30/08 – the day of the Bilski decision.

--

 

Here’s a more interesting case.  Assignee is Barclay’s.  It’s U.S. Patent No. 7,471,086 ”Method of protecting an initial investment value of an investment”:

 

1. A method of protecting at least a portion of an initial investment value of an investment made by one or more investors, comprising the steps of:

·         providing a regulated investment company;

·         selecting a set of put option-based instruments having a first underlying reference and a set of call option-based instruments having a second underlying reference, the first underlying reference being the same as or substantially correlated to the second underlying reference, so that the set of put option-based instruments and the set of call option-based instruments collectively meet a diversification requirement for the regulated investment company;

·         determining using an option-based instrument calculator:

o   a first value of the set of put option-based instruments at initial investment of the set of put option-based instruments; and

o   a second value of the set of call option-based instruments at initial investment of the set of call option-based instruments, so that the sum of the first value and the second value is less than the initial investment value;

·         holding positions using the regulated investment company in the set of put option-based instruments and the set of call option-based instruments, so that the sets of put option-based instruments and call option-based instruments provide the at least a portion of the initial investment value at maturity of the investment; and

·         making available the at least a portion of the initial investment value to the one or more investors upon the maturity of the investment.

 

This one is noteworthy for a few reasons:

1)      It’s the first Bilski-questionable claim I’ve seen allowed that was examined *after* the Bilski decision (NOA is dated 11/18).  But that may not mean much as this examiner appears to have been unaware of recent 101 decisions – the original, unamended claims, were even worse from a Bilski/Comiskey perspective (first steps were “registering a C corporation; electing the C corporation to be treated as a regulated investment company…”) but the only 101 rejection was under Nuijten because of the broad Beauregard claim (encompassing non-physical media).

2)      Accelerated Examination.  Filed in 8/2007, final OA in 5/2008.  Overcome with an RCE.

3)      It was filed by Charles Macedo of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, who has given several presentations and papers on the 101 issue.

4)      On the merits, the only “particular machine” in there is the “option-based instrument calculator”, which the specs describes only in functional terms (the figure shows a plain box representing this calculator).  But it sounds pretty “particular”.

 

Happy new year.

Patent of the Week - Reusable Postage Stamps

This issued today to IBM – reusable, any-denomination postage stamps via RFID.

 U.S. Patent No. 7,457.760 Programmable radio-frequency identification (RFID) postage stamps

In addition to the invention itself, which sounds like a great idea, there’s interesting prosecution notes:

• Accelerated exam, baby.  Filed in February 2008, in Art Unit 3628 (a business methods unit) – which typically has pendency times about 4-5 years, I think.
• First action allowance (examiner buys into IBM’s reasoning distinguishing the prior art).  So there shouldn’t be as big a Festo problem, in my opinion (this is a question that still bugs me…it’s not so straightforward)
• Only one claim!  Why slow things up unnecessarily?  IBM filed a continuation shortly after the notice of allowance to capture the rest (presumably – it’s not yet public).
• It’s a method claim, with the end-user as the actor.  Interesting choice, but it makes sense here.  (and clearly passes the Bilski “tied to a particular machine” test – the machine here is the stamp)
• What, no American could think of this?  I guess those Brits know their Post.

Summary:

This invention introduces a single re-usable stick-on section of electronic paper, in the form of a postage stamp, containing an RFID chip. All the sender is required to do is simply affix the stamp to a parcel and swipe a smart card over the stamp to encode it. Once encoded, the sender can send the parcel via any number of 24-hour 7 day a week post-boxes, or for larger items some other deposit or collection mechanism may be used. When the sender's smart card is swiped over the stamp, the chip will be programmed with the sender's information such as payment details linked to the smart card so that the accurate cost of sending the item can be calculated and charged during the sorting process. During the sorting process, the item is accurately weighed and measured by the postal office. An anti-tampering mechanism is also provided to allow the stamp to be reused without jeopardizing the prior sender's personal and financial information. Also, the stamp may be encoded using the Bluetooth protocol.

Claim 1:

1. A method of using digital electronic paper in the form of a reusable stamp comprising:

·         affixing a stamp without a predetermined postage to an article to be mailed, wherein the stamp comprises a top layer having a visual display, middle layer having an electronics layer, and a bottom layer having an adhesive layer;

·         swiping a smart card to encode the affixed stamp with a unique payment identifier issued by a payment authority and valid for a single payment, and other information such that the visual display automatically updates to show a representation of the encoded information;

·         depositing the article with the encoded affixed stamp at a postal authority deposit location such that after the article is received by a postal authority, a postage value is determined automatically during a sorting process;

·         verifying the visual display and the encoded information on the stamp for evidence of tampering; automatically requesting payment of the calculated postage from a payment authority using the unique payment identifier, and

·         altering the adhesive through electrostatic manipulation to allow the removal of the affixed stamp so that the stamp may be reused.