Appeal 2007-2745
Application 09/761,671
1 The Appellant contrasts this with Brown’s use of neural networks to select
2 individual stocks in a portfolio (FF26). Thus, the Appellant has, as in the previous
3 argument, assigned an SVA teaching by Rappaport to Bielinski that is not
4 necessarily applicable to Bielinski’s VBA, and compared Bielinski’s single
5 company analysis to Brown’s example of portfolio analysis. More to the point, we
6 find there is nothing fundamentally incompatible between a measure of market risk
7 and portfolio selection as suggested by the Appellant, particularly since it is widely
8 known that the purpose of portfolios is to manage risk. None of the three
9 references make any connection between their teachings and either an efficient or
10 inefficient market hypothesis.
11 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing the Examiner erred.
12 (3) The Appellant argues that Bielinski’s reliance on long term cash flow
13 analysis is incompatible with Brown’s short term analysis, and that Bielinski
14 specifically teaches away from the use of projections for any aspect of analysis
15 (Br. 13:Second ¶).
16 We again find that the Appellant compared Bielinski’s single company analysis
17 to Brown’s example of portfolio analysis, as the short term analysis pointed to by
18 the Appellant (Brown 56:reference to 80% monthly turnover) is again within the
19 investment analysis examples of Brown.
20 We further find that the Appellant is conflating the two distinct operations
21 performed by Bielinski’s VBM. In particular, Bielinski first tests the sensitivity of
22 long term historical cash flow to different operating assumptions about past
23 operations (FF 10). Then Bielinski applies the results of this sensitivity analysis to
24 future strategic action (FF 11). Contrary to the Appellant’s contention, Bielinski
25 specifically teaches the use of projections in this phase of the analysis.
18
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013