Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 We initially find that here, as throughout the arguments in the Brief, the
2 Appellant has somewhat rhetorically attributed the teachings of Rappaport, and in
3 particular certain assertions within Rappaport, to Bielinski as a device to discredit
4 the combination of Bielinski and Brown. While Bielinski refers to the teachings of
5 Rappaport, as we noted in footnote [ 1], this does not necessarily mean that
6 everything taught and asserted by Rappaport is necessarily embraced by
7 Bielinski’s teachings. In particular, Bielinski distinguishes its VBM technique
8 from Rappaport’s SVA technique (FF 09).
9 As to the merits of the Appellant’s argument, although Rappaport describes
10 that three factors determine stock prices (FF 29), we find that Bielinski describes
11 several market value drivers and implies there are more (FF 19). Also, we find that
12 Bielinski describes drivers of varying scope (FF 12), such that the broadest drivers
13 taught by Rappaport can be broken down into more drivers more directly linked to
14 operations.
15 On the other hand, the forty indicators taught by Brown that the Appellant
16 contends are incompatible relate to portfolio analysis across multiple companies
17 (FF 26) rather than analysis of a single company as taught by Bielinski (FF 04). It
18 is hardly surprising and totally irrelevant that an application comparing multiple
19 companies might use more indicators than a single company.
20 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
21 (2) The Appellant argues that Bielinski’s teachings imply an efficient market,
22 which is incompatible with an inefficient market implied by Rappaport (Br. 13:Top
23 ¶).
24 The Appellant bases this argument again on Rappaport rather than Bielinski as
25 such, pointing to Rappaport’s description of a market risk quantifier, beta (FF 28).
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013