Ex Parte Mittal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201612699421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/699,421 02/03/2010 6449 7590 02/18/2016 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. 607 14th Street, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 Hitesh Mittal 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2566-486 5895 EXAMINER KWONG, CHO YIU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HITESH MITTAL and KEN GLEASON Appeal2014-002667 Application 12/699,421 1 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Hitesh Mittal et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). An oral hearing was held on Feb. 4, 2016. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 The Appellants identify ITG Software Solutions, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-002667 Application 12/669,421 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computerized method of allocating portions of an order for a security among a plurality of electronic trading systems, comprising the steps of: receiving an electronic trade order for buying or selling a quantity of shares of a security, said order having associated to it trading criteria; identifying a plurality of electronic trading destinations to which the order may be sent; at a computer, calculating a score for each electronic trading destination of said plurality based on criteria for each electronic trading destination and on said trading criteria for said electronic trade order; at a computer, determining a plurality of target electronic trading destinations based on the calculated scores, said target electronic trading destinations being a subset of said identified plurality of electronic trading destinations; at a computer, generating a plurality of electronic suborders for respective portions of the quantity of shares, wherein the suborders and respective portions are based on said electronic trade order and said calculated scores, the sum of the portions being less than or equal to said quantity of shares associates with said electronic trade order; assigning each suborder to a corresponding target electronic trading destination; and electronically submitting each suborder to the corresponding electronic trading destination. THE REJECTION 2 Appeal2014-002667 Application 12/669,421 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being anticipated by Chiulli (US 2009/0112775 Al, pub. Apr. 30, 2009). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being anticipated by Chiulli? ANALYSIS We do not sustain the rejection for the reasons stated in the Appeal Brief. We agree that "Chiulli does not disclose dividing an electronic order into suborders based on calculated scores of electronic trading destinations" (Appeal Br. 14) as claimed. The Examiner states that It should be noted that brokers are ranked in "expected total execution costs" (See Chiulli Paragraph 0670), such ranking for each broker is essentially a calculated score of each broker based on a plurality criteria reflecting the "expected total execution cost". Thus, given the trading algorithm divides a single larger order into a series of smaller sub-orders and allocates the sub-orders to brokers based on the optimization of brokers having the lowest "expected total execution costs", it is clear that allocation of the suborders is based on at least trade order and expected total execution cost (score) of the brokers. Ans. 3. However, this does not address the claim limitation at a computer, generating a plurality of electronic suborders for respective portions of the quantity of shares, wherein the suborders and respective portions are based on said electronic trade order and said calculated scores, the sum of the portions being less than or equal to said quantity of shares associates with said electronic trade order. 3 Appeal2014-002667 Application 12/669,421 Claim 1, (emphasis added). As we understand it, the Examiner is making a case that, given Chiulli' s determination of a "hot hitter" among brokers, one of ordinary skill would have been led to divide an electronic order into suborders based on calculated scores of electronic trading destinations as claimed. But the question here is one of anticipation, not obviousness, and in that regard, claim 1 does not read on Chiulli. For the foregoing reasons, a prima facie case of anticipation has not been made out in the first instance. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-20 that depend from it, is not sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation