Ex Parte Berckmans

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2004

09427426 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte PHILIPPE E. BERCKMANS
__________
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5
through 16 and 18 through 28.
The disclosed invention relates to a system and method for
graphically representing investment information relating to a
financial investment via the display of a cell bar and a dynamic
indicator color. The relative size of the cell bar is
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
2
proportional to a first investment parameter, and the color of
the dynamic color indicator changes according to a value range of
a second investment parameter.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for graphically representing investment
information relating to a financial investment, the method
comprising:
providing an investment cell in an investment table
identified with the financial investment;
selectively linking a first cell bar with a first investment
parameter, wherein the relative size of said first cell bar is
proportional to said first investment parameter;
selectively linking a dynamic indicator color with a second
investment parameter, wherein the color of said dynamic indicator
color changes according to a value range of said second invest-
ment parameter;
displaying said first cell bar within said investment cell;
and
displaying said dynamic indicator color within said invest-
ment cell.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Lyons et al. (Lyons) 4,989,141 Jan. 29, 1991
Marshall 5,675,746 Oct. 7, 1997
Williams et al. (Williams) 5,999,918 Dec. 7, 1999
(filed Apr. 2, 1997)
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
3
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 14 through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Marshall.
Claims 5, 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Williams.
Claims 9 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Lyons.
Claims 20 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Marshall.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 9) and the
answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 7,
8, 14 through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28, and the obviousness
rejection of claims 5, 6, 9 through 13 and 20 through 23.
Anticipation is only established when a single prior art
reference discloses every limitation of the claimed invention,
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
4
either explicitly or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 988 (1995).
The examiner has made findings (answer, pages 3 and 4) that
Marshall discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 14, 16, 19
and 24 through 26. Marshall discloses financial investment data
via display parameters that include “shape, color, texture and
axis” (column 10, lines 28 through 30). Marshall explains
(column 10, lines 30 through 39) that a three-sided shaped
displayed metaphor may represent stock with small capitalization,
a four-sided shaped displayed metaphor may represent stock with
medium capitalization, and a five-sided shaped displayed metaphor
may represent stock with large capitalization. A color display
parameter is used in Marshall to indicate profit or loss of a
company (column 6, lines 26 and 27; column 10, lines 37 through
39). According to the examiner (answer, page 3), “shape is
analogous to the bar” claimed by appellant.
Appellant argues (brief, pages 4 through 6) that Marshall
does not disclose a displayed cell bar whose relative size is
proportional to an investment parameter.
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
5
We agree with appellant’s argument. The shape in Marshall
is not a “cell bar” where the “relative size” is proportional
to a parameter, and “analogousness” is not the test for
anticipation. Although Marshall discloses (column 6, lines 27
through 29) that the height of a shaped metaphor may vary above
or below the plane of the virtual reality display, which may be
suggestive of a display device having a size which varies with a
parameter, the examiner does not rely on this teaching. We do
not see a picture of this in Marshall and, thus, we do not find
that the height of the shaped metaphor anticipates the claimed
cell bar. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claims 1,
3, 7, 8, 14 through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28 is reversed.
The obviousness rejections of claims 5, 6, 9 through 13 and
20 through 23 is reversed because the teachings of Williams and
Lyons do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of
Marshall.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 14
through 16, 18, 19 and 24 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5, 6,
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
6
9 through 13 and 20 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:psb
Appeal No. 2003-0138
Application 09/427,426
7
Stuart T. Langley, Esq.
Holland & Hart LLP
555 17th Street - Suite 3200
P.O. Box 8749
Denver, CO 80201-8749