Ex Parte Segal et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

09774768 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DROR SEGAL, ANNE E. ALLEN,
and MARK HICKS
____________

Appeal 2010-005059
Application 09/774,768
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005059
Application 09/774,768

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 7, 11 to 17, and 23. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for managing trading and system activity
in a trading exchange, the method comprising:
at a centralized location, providing a visual display of
trading exchange activity including systems activity and trading
activity to a trading exchange supervisor or manager; and
providing an interactive decision support interface
coupled to the visual display of trading exchange activity,
wherein providing the visual display of trading exchange
activity comprises:
maintaining data representing a three dimensional model
of said exchange's trading areas, said model including surfaces;
receiving and maintaining in a computer memory data
representing trading exchange activity;
generating a two dimensional display representing an
aspect view of said three dimensional model selected via the
interactive decision support interface, said two dimensional
display including perspective views of at least some of said
surfaces of said model;
generating alphanumeric images of selected data
representing trading exchange activity; and
mapping said alphanumeric images onto selected ones of
said perspective views.

Appeal 2010-005059
Application 09/774,768

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 to 7, 11 to 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ivy Schmerken, Real Liffe or virtual reality, 15
Wall Street & Tech., 1-3 (Jan. 1997) (hereinafter “Schmerken”) in
view of Dean Tomasula, Virtual trading is virtually a reality, 13 Wall
Street & Tech., 1-4 (Oct. 1995) (hereinafter “Tomasula”).
2. Claims 8 to 10 and 18 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schmerken in view of Tomasula and further in view of Marshall
(US 5,675,746, iss. Oct. 7, 1997).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the prior art does not disclose providing a
visual display of trading exchange activity including systems activity and
trading activity.
According the Appellants’ Specification, system activity relates to the
state of the server, host connectivity and floor connectivity (Spec. 16). We
agree with the Appellants that Schmerken does not disclose a virtual display
of trading exchange activity including system activity. We find that
Schmerken discloses a display of a trading floor but discloses nothing about
viewing system activity (p. 2). Likewise, we find that Tomasula discloses a
virtual trading floor that integrates a group of traders by audio, video, and
data communications into a single unit so that each trader can be located in a
different city and still interact with his fellow trader as if they were all on the
same floor (p. 2).
Tomasula does not disclose a visual display of systems activity.
Even the Examiner recognizes that this subject matter is not disclosed in the
Appeal 2010-005059
Application 09/774,768

4
prior art (Ans. 5). The Examiner found the Appellants’ own Specification
identified the need to manage systems activity (Ans. 20-21), but identifying
such a need is not necessarily an admission of prior art, and in any event
does not in itself show the predictability of the solution claimed. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 4, 7,
and 23 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claims 5 and 11 and claims 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14 dependent
thereon because claims 5 and 11 recite a visual display of trading exchange
including systems activity.
Claim 15 does not claim a visual display of trading exchange activity
including system activity. We are not persuaded of error on the part of the
Examiner by Appellants’ argument that Schmerken teaches away from the
user of virtual reality for trading. A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out the reference, or would be led in
a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. See U.S.
v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52, 86 S. Ct. 708, 714, 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966).
While the Appellants are correct that the disclosure in Schmerken states that
the Exchange does not intend to use the virtual technology for the purpose of
trading, the paragraph that follows this disclosure states that the future of
virtual trading could be just around the corner (p. 2). In any case, there is
nothing in Schmerken that would discourage one from using the virtual
technology disclosed in Schmerken for virtual trading.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that the prior art does not disclose a virtual display of
systems activity, trading exchange supervision, ability to pinpoint complex
Appeal 2010-005059
Application 09/774,768

5
systems and stock related activity with visual clarity because these features
are not recited in claim 15. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16 to 22 because the Appellants have not argued the separate
patentability of these claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection as it is directed to claims 1 to 14
and 23. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 to 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh