This is an appeal from inter partes reexamination proceeding involving two patents on methods and systems for performing statistical analyses of investment data. As to the first patent, the court held that the PTAB erred in how it construed the claim term “bias parameter” when applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. The reasonable construction of “bias parameter” requires only that the bias parameter be used in selecting samples from the sample space, not in creating a sample space or in making arithmetic combinations of statistical measures previously calculated from separate, resamples analyses. This is clear from the claim language and the specification. Because the asserted references do not show this bias parameter, the decision of the PTAB must be reversed.
As to the second patent, the court held that the PTAB also erred in how it construed the phrase “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments” because it did not require that a single request must correspond to at least two investments. The court vacated the PTAB’s cancellation of the claims and remanded for consideration of the proper construction.
In Re: Samir Varma, Case No. 2015-1502 (March 10, 2016); Opinion by: Taranto, joined by Wallach and Clevenger; Appealed From: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Read the full opinion here.
