Axioma, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

2020003337 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/280,144 09/29/2016 Kartik Sivaramakrishnan 166.0022 1000
23448 7590 11/02/2020
HULTQUIST IP
P.O. BOX 14329
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
EXAMINER
SHARON, AYAL I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2020 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):
hip@hultquistip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KARTIK SIVARAMAKRISHNAN
__________________

Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–15 and 21.2 Appeal Br. 1, 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Qontigo Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 16–20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix), 5.
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for interactively
comparing performance of a plurality of investment portfolios
within a window of a graphical user interface, the method
comprising:
electronically receiving by a programmed computer a
plurality of return distributions corresponding to the plurality of
investment portfolios wherein each return distribution
comprises pairs of return and frequency values;
displaying a graphical representation of the return
distribution for each investment portfolio within the window of
the graphical user interface on a computer screen in a display
order such that each return distribution is displayed over and
potentially obscures any previously displayed return
distribution;
monitoring, by a processor, a location of a user pointer
indication to detect when the user pointer indication is located
and hovering within the window of the graphical user interface
displaying the return distributions;
automatically determining an indicated return value
corresponding to the return value of the displayed return
distributions wherever the user pointer indication is located and
hovering within the graphical user interface displaying the
return distributions; and
automatically altering, by the processor, the display order
in which the return distributions are displayed so that, at the
indicated return value corresponding to the user pointer
indication, no return distribution completely obscures any other
return distribution.

Appeal Brief (Claims App.) 1.

Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

3
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ghavamzadeh (US 2016/0283970 A1, pub. Sept. 29, 2016),
Rockafellar (Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distribution, J.
Banking & Finance, vol. 26, 1443–71 (2002)) (“Rockafellar 1”), and
Yoshimoto (US 2013/ 0187923 A1, pub. July 25, 2013).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ghavamzadeh, Rockafellar 1, Yoshimoto, and Rockafellar (Optimization of
Conditional Value-at-Risk, Sept. 5, 1999) (“Rockafellar 2”).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–15
Rejected Over Ghavamzadeh, Rockafellar 1, and Yoshimoto
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ghavamzadeh teaches a
method for interactively comparing performance by electronically receiving
a plurality of return distributions, each of which comprises pairs of returns
and frequency values, but Ghavamzadeh does not teach the intended use of
“return distributions” “correspond to the plurality of investment portfolios”
as claimed. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that Rockafellar 1 teaches this
intended use as a conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) for portfolio distributions
as a tool for optimization modeling. Id. at 7. The Examiner cites Yoshimoto
to teach displaying return distributions for investment portfolios, monitoring
a location of a user pointer indication, automatically determining indicated
return values of the displayed return distributions where the indication is
located, and automatically altering the display order as claimed. Id. at 7–9.

3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1–15 and 21 as directed to a
judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Final Act. 21–22; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

4
Appellant argues that Ghavamzadeh teaches an ad recommendation
policy that recommends advertising content, but it does not interactively
compare the performance of investment portfolios. Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appellant argues that this limitation is not an intended use but instead is
entitled to patentable weight. Id. Appellant argues that Rockafellar 1’s use
of CVaR for portfolio distributions, optimization, and loss distributions in
finance “cannot be substituted for the distributions or used to modify the
distributions of Ghavamzadeh without essentially throwing out the entirety
of Ghavamzadeh’s teachings and starting over at square one.” Id. at 10.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious to use Ghavamzadeh’s CVaR method with investment portfolios as
Rockafellar 1 teaches. Final Act. 7; Ans. 7–8. The Examiner reasons that
CVaR is a general purpose mathematical tool that can be applied to different
types of data, such as ad recommendation policies in Ghavamzadeh, and to
financial portfolio optimization data in Rockafellar 1, such that it would
have been obvious to employ Ghavamzadeh’s CVaR technique to analyze
return distributions of investment portfolios, as Rockafellar 1 teaches to do,
for similar benefits. Ans. 8; Final Act. 7. “[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Furthermore, an implicit
motivation to combine exists for improvements that make a process more
desirable by making it faster and more efficient. See DyStar Textilfarben
GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

5
We agree with the Examiner that Ghavamzadeh’s incorporation of
Rockafellar 2 and its teaching to optimize CVaR for financial portfolios for
use in Ghavamzadeh’s method to optimize advertising content is evidence a
skilled artisan would have used Rockafellar 1’s similar teachings to modify
Ghavamzadeh’s CVaR method to minimize the risk of financial investments
for similar predictable results and benefits. See Ans. 8 (citing Ghavamzadeh
¶ 99). Ghavamzadeh teaches that its CVaR technique and risk minimization
method apply to and can be used “in conjunction with a recommendation for
an investment-stopping problem . . . to minimize the average price of an
equity and control its worst-case loss distribution.” Ghavamzadeh ¶ 179.
Ghavamzadeh thus teaches that its CVaR risk minimization and optimization
techniques are scalable and useable in the financial services industry to
manage the investment risk of equities in a portfolio. Id.
Rockafellar 1 also teaches the use of CVaR to measure the risk of
losses that may occur in the finance or insurance industries. Rockafellar 1,
1443. Rockafellar 1 describes CVaR as a tool that is used in optimization
modeling, and CVaR can be incorporated into optimization problems that
are designed to minimize risk or shape it within bounds. Id. at 1444. In
addition, Rockafellar 1 teaches risk management using CVaR and value at
risk (VaR) as stochastic optimization techniques that have been studied in
stochastic programming literature in the context of finance. Id. at 1446.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner’s reason for modifying
Ghavamzadeh’s method to use its CVaR risk management techniques on
investment portfolios, as taught by Rockafellar 1, is supported by a rational
underpinning, which addresses Appellant’s hindsight argument. In re Cree,
Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

6
Appellant also asserts that “[q]uite simply, Yoshimoto does not teach
altering the display order as claimed.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that
Yoshimoto emphasizes a data set “by bolding or otherwise highlighting the
selected dataset,” and Yoshimoto deemphasizes other datasets “by fading or
hiding graphical representations of other datasets.” Id. Appellant contends:
None of these approaches achieve the advantages of moving
return distributions, to reorder them automatically as addressed
with respect to the return distributions of Fig. 9, Fig. 10 or Fig.
17, as discussed at page 50, line 15-page 51, line 7 of the
present application. In this respect, claim 1 does not simply
address reordering but reordering automatically in an area of
interest to the user as seen in Fig. 17, for example. Yoshimoto’s
teaching of hiding other datasets is directly contrary to the
present invention’s approach of presenting all of the data to
allow users to focus on how that data compares in a zone of
interest.
Id.
The Examiner responds that “automatically altering, by the processor,
the display order in which the return distributions are displayed so that, at
the indicated return value corresponding to the user pointer indication, no
return distribution completely obscures any other return distribution” merely
requires an order in which “no return distribution completely obscures any
other return distribution,” and Yoshimoto teaches such an ordering of return
distributions in all of its drawings. Ans. 9–10; Final Act. 8–9.
We begin our analysis by construing the following limitation:
automatically altering, by the processor, the display order in
which the return distributions are displayed so that, at the
indicated return value corresponding to the user pointer
indication, no return distribution completely obscures any other
return distribution.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix), 1.
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

7
The Examiner reasonably interprets claim 1 to require a display order
at the indicated return value so “no return distribution completely obscures
any other return distribution.” Appeal Br. (Claims App.), at 1. Appellant
asserts this feature is described in Figures 9, 10, and 17. See Appeal Br. 11
(citing Spec. 50:15–51:7). Appellant’s Figure 10 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

8
Appellant’s Figure 10 illustrates two charts 272, 282 showing four
return distributions in two different formats or orders. Chart 272 illustrates
return distributions 274, 276, 278, 280 as bars that are filled such that many
salient aspects of the different return distributions are hidden. The left tail of
no hedge distribution 280 completely obscures the left tails of three hedges
274, 276, 278 “so it is impossible from this chart to determine what the left
tail looks like for the three hedges.” Spec. 42:12–43:5. Chart 282 orders the
same four return distributions as lines so that “the shape of each of the four
return distributions is visible.” Id. at 43:10.
The Specification indicates it would be advantageous in chart 272 to
alter the order of graphing return distributions so a better comparison can be
made and “to switch back and forth between the display in chart 272 and
that in chart 282, as discussed further below in conjunction with Figs. 17 and
18.” Id. at 43:6–9.
Figure 10 also includes a user supplied indication line 1002 indicating
a return value (-6.8%) at which the user may want to control the display
order of the distributions in chart 282. The Specification continues:
As will be explained further herein, the ability to place the
indicator 1702 at different places within the return distribution
and advantageously display the return distribution in a specific
order for that location is an advantageous aspect of the present
invention as discussed further below in connection with Figs.
17 and 18 below.
Id. at 43:20–23 (emphasis added).
The Specification thus indicates the advantages of altering the order of
display of return distributions at indicator 1702 to allow better comparisons.
Id. at 43:6–9. Ordering return distributions as lines in chart 282 is one way
to make the shapes of all distributions visible. Id. at 43:10.
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

9
Appellant’s Figure 17, reproduced below, shows an exploded view of
portions of return distributions 284, 286, 288, 290 around indicator 1702.

In Appellant’s Figure 17 above, window 1700 is an exploded view of
distributions 284, 286, 299, 290 at indication line 1002 in Figure 10. Id. at
50:15–17. Cursor 1710 hovers on line 1702 at x coordinate is -5.8%. Id. at
50:17–18. Window 1700 has a width of 2% with intersection points A, B,
C, and D of distributions 288, 286, 290, 284 at line 1702. Id. at 50:19–22.
The y coordinates of each distribution at x coordinate, -5.8%, are determined
so the curves “can be automatically displayed in the order shown so that
overlapping does not obscure the data illustrated in the window 1700 of
interest.” Id. at 50:22–51:2 (emphasis added). The Specification does not
describe the order of distributions 284, 286, 288, 290 other than the order is
shown in Figure 17. Figure 17 depicts the distribution lines having an order
so the lines do not obscure one another along user indication line 1702.
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

10
The altered display order shows return distributions as lines. A return
distribution intersects another return distribution at a point along line 1702 if
the lines overlap. The return distribution lines do not intersect on line 1702
in Figure 17, which the Specification cites as an exemplary order of display.
In this order, the shape of each return distribution is visible. Spec. 43:10.
Yoshimoto teaches a similar order of return distributions as lines.
Yoshimoto ¶¶ 24, 25. As illustrated in Figure 4 of Yoshimoto, reproduced
below, the display order is similar to Appellant’s Figure 17 so “no return
distribution completely obscures any other return distribution” as claimed.

Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

11
Figure 4 of Yoshimoto above illustrates return distributions 110–130
as solid or dashed lines in an ordered display (like Appellant’s Figure 17) so
“no return distribution completely obscures any other return distribution” as
the distributions are ordered along indication line 420. See Yoshimoto ¶ 30.
Yoshimoto also teaches that distributions can be displayed as bars. Id. ¶ 24.
This display format would be similar to chart 272 of Appellant’s Figure 10
above. Therefore, Yoshimoto also teaches return distributions that can be
displayed in different formats as filled bar charts or lines just as Appellant
describes return distributions displayed as filled bars or an order of lines in
Figures 10 and 17. Spec. 41:16–20, 43:6–10, 51:15–52:2, Figs. 9, 10, 17.
Yoshimoto thus teaches return distributions displayed over and potentially
obscuring any previously displayed return distribution (i.e., as bar charts)
and altered return distributions displayed in an order in which “no return
distribution completely obscures any other return distribution” (i.e., as lines)
as claimed and as interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification under a
broadest reasonable interpretation.
Yoshimoto automatically determines an indicated return value that
corresponds to the return value of displayed return distributions at line 420
indicated by a user touching a displayed return distribution 110, 120, 130.
Yoshimoto ¶¶ 28, 32. Values may be displayed for a point on dataset 310
and/or any other dataset presented on a display such as Figure 4. Id. ¶ 32.
Appellant is correct that Yoshimoto also teaches that datasets can be
deemphasized by fading or hiding graphical representations of datasets other
than a selected dataset. Appeal Br. 11. Yoshimoto further teaches selected
datasets that may be bolded or highlighted for emphasis. Yoshimoto ¶ 27.
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

12
The Examiner relies on the order of return distributions in Figures 1–4
in which no return distribution obscures any other distribution at line 420, or
anywhere else in the drawings. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Yoshimoto ¶¶ 27, 28,
30, Figs. 1–4); Ans. 9–10. Paragraph 30 describes Figure 4 of Yoshimoto as
displaying a point 430 on return distribution 130 at user indication line 420.
Paragraph 32 indicates that the values of data points of other datasets may be
presented as well. Yoshimoto thus also automatically determines return
values of displayed return distributions as claimed. See Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s arguments that Yoshimoto’s shading and hiding of return
distributions does not teach the claimed automatic altering of the order does
not address the Examiner’s reliance on Yoshimoto, Figures 1–4, to teach the
claimed ordering of return distributions. The ordering of return distributions
in Yoshimoto’s drawings corresponds to the ordering of return distributions
illustrated in Appellant’s Figure 17, which describes a preferred embodiment
of the claimed method of automatically altering return distributions.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claims 1–15
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 2–4, 6, 8–14, and 21 recite or
summarize limitations and assert that the prior art lacks those features. See
Appeal Br. 12–14. These arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive argument than a mere recitation of claim elements and a
bare assertion that the elements are not found in the prior art).
Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

13
The Examiner sets forth findings and explanations of why the prior art
teaches or suggests the limitations of each of these claims. See Final Act. 9–
20. Appellant’s conclusory arguments do not persuade us of error in the
findings or conclusion of obviousness of the Examiner. In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (approving of the Board’s practice of requiring
an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections).
Moreover, Yoshimoto’s drawings display a decreasing order of return
distributions recited in claim 2 to the same extent as Appellant’s Figure 17.
The return distribution with the highest y-axis value (line 110) is displayed.
Then, return distribution 130 with the next highest y-axis value is displayed
followed by line 120 with the lowest y-axis value at line 420 similar to the
order of return distributions 288, 286, 290, and 298 in Appellant’s Figure 17.
See Final Act. 9; Ans. 10.
Yoshimoto also automatically outputs preferred distributions when an
indication line 420 is input by a user as illustrated in Yoshimoto’s Figure 4
above and as recited in claim 3. Yoshimoto ¶¶ 30–32; Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant’s argument regarding hindsight for the rejection of claim 6
was addressed for the rejection of claim 1 where the Examiner’s rationale is
supported by rational underpinnings. See Appeal Br. 12; Final Act. 11.
Appellant’s argument regarding claim 8 does not address the findings
of the Examiner in the Office Action and Answer. See Appeal Br. 13; Final
Act. 11–12; Ans. 11. Thus, we are not apprised of Examiner error in that
regard.
Appellant does not present any arguments for claims 5, 7, and 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 2–15.

Appeal 2020-003337
Application 15/280,144

14
Claim 21
Rejected Over Ghavamzadeh, Rockafellar 1 and 2, and Yoshimoto
Appellant’s argument regarding claim 21 asserts that Rockafellar 1
and Rockafellar 2 do not teach its limitations. Appeal Br. 13–14. Such
conclusory argument does not apprise us of Examiner error. See Jung, 637
F.3d at 1365. Moreover, the Examiner explains why Rockafellar 1 teaches
multiple confidence levels for CVaR estimation. Final Act. 20–21; Ans. 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Ghavamzadeh,
Rockafellar 1,
Yoshimoto
1–15
21 103 Ghavamzadeh,
Rockafellar 1,
Yoshimoto,
Rockafellar 2
21
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 21
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