Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01502/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01502-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samir Varma
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: SAMIR VARMA,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1502

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/012,366.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

INVESTPIC LLC,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION, SAS INSTITUTE INC.,

Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1667

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,939.

______________________ 

Decided: March 10, 2016 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2016
2 IN RE: VARMA

 JAY P. KESAN, DiMuroGinsberg PC, McLean, VA, 

argued for appellants. Also represented by CECIL E. KEY, 

DGKeyIP Group, Tysons Corner, VA; TERESA MARIE 

SUMMERS, DiMuroGinsberg PC – DGKeyIP Group, Tysons 

Corner, VA.

 FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, 

VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee in 2015-1502. 

Also represented by ROBERT MCBRIDE, THOMAS W.

KRAUSE. 

JOHN MARLOTT, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, argued for

both appellees in 2015-1667. SAS Institute Inc. also 

represented by DAVID B. COCHRAN, Cleveland, OH.

KENNETH R. ADAMO, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, 

IL, for appellee International Business Machines. Also 

represented by BRENT P. RAY; ARCHIT P. SHAH, Palo Alto, 

CA.

______________________ 

Before WALLACH, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

These two appeals involve U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291, 

which names Samir Varma as the inventor and is owned 

by InvestPic LLC (collectively, Varma). The patent

describes and claims methods and systems for performing 

statistical analyses of investment data. The Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board of the Patent and Trademark Office 

cancelled certain claims of the ’291 patent in two related 

reexamination proceedings—one initiated by International Business Machines Corp. and SAS Institute Inc., the 

other by SAS alone. IBM v. InvestPic LLC, No. 2015-

1450, 2015 WL 1456097, at *6 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2015); Ex 

parte Varma, No. 2014-7760, 2014 WL 7186800, at *7

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 3

(PTAB Dec. 16, 2014). Varma’s appeals center on two 

claim phrases: (1) a “bias parameter” that “determines a 

degree of randomness in sample selection in a resampling 

process”; and (2) “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments.” We agree 

with Varma that the Board erred regarding both claim 

phrases. Correcting the first error, we reverse the cancellation of claims 1–5, 8–16, 19–21, and 24. Correcting the 

second error, we vacate the cancellation of claims 22, 23, 

25, and 29–31 and remand for further proceedings on 

those claims. 

BACKGROUND

A 

The ’291 patent states that many “conventional financial information sites” on the World Wide Web furnish 

information derived from “rudimentary statistical functions [that] are not useful to investors in forecasting the 

behavior of financial markets because they rely upon 

assumptions that the underlying probability distribution 

function (‘PDF’) for the financial data follows a normal or 

Gaussian distribution, which is generally false.” ’291 

patent, col. 1, lines 24–37. It adds that “the PDF for 

financial market data is heavy tailed (i.e., the histograms 

of financial market data typically involve many outliers 

containing important information)” and that “statistical 

measures such as the standard deviation provide no 

meaningful insight into the distribution of financial data.” 

Id., col. 1, lines 41–47. Conventional “analyses understate the true risk and overstate potential rewards for an 

investment or trading strategy.” Id., col. 1, line 53–54. 

After those descriptions of deficiencies of conventional 

methods, the ’291 patent’s Summary of the Invention 

states that “[t]he present invention utilizes resampled 

statistical methods for the analysis of financial data,” 

which does not necessarily follow a normal probability 

distribution. Id., col. 1, line 65, through col. 2, line 3. One 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/10/2016
4 IN RE: VARMA

particular resampling method described in the ’291 patent 

is the bootstrap method, which estimates the distribution 

of data in a pool (sample space) by repeated sampling 

from the pool. Id., col. 10, lines 20–38. In a bootstrap 

analysis, one way to define a sample space, id., col. 11, 

lines 16–17, is by identifying a specific investment or 

particular time period, id., col. 12, lines 62–66. The 

“bootstrap” samples of data are then drawn “with replacement”: samples are repeatedly drawn from that

sample space, and after each drawing, the drawn data 

returns to the pool for the drawing of the next sample. 

Id., col. 10, lines 60–62; id., col. 11, lines 18–20. Although 

samples may be drawn at random, id., col. 10, lines 60–

62, the ’291 patent also describes using a “ ‘bias’ parameter” that “specifies the degree of randomness in the 

resampling process,” id., col. 11, lines 55–58. See id., col. 

15, lines 52–62; id., col. 16, lines 9–21. The ’291 patent 

states that, “[i]n order to perform a resampled statistical 

analysis, a query is received from a client,” who “may 

specify a number of parameters including an investment 

or investments (e.g., a portfolio) to be analyzed, a financial 

function, a sample size, a period, a type of plot and a bias 

parameter, which controls the randomness of the 

resampling process.” Id., col. 2, lines 50–56 (emphasis 

added). 

Claim 1, amended during reexamination, is representative, for present purposes, of the claims that include 

the “bias parameter” limitation: 

1. A method for calculating, analyzing and displaying investment data comprising the steps of:

(a) selecting a sample space, wherein the sample space includes at least one investment data sample;

(b) generating a distribution function using a 

re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter, wherein the bias parameter deterCase: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 5

mines a degree of randomness in sample selection in a resampling process; and,

(c) generating a plot of the distribution function.

InvestPic J.A. 735 (amendment underlined).

Claim 22, also amended during reexamination, involves a request concerning two or more investments:

22. A system for providing statistical analysis 

of investment information over an information 

network comprising:

a financial data database for storing investment data; 

a client database; 

a plurality of processors collectively arranged to 

perform a parallel processing computation, 

wherein the plurality of processors is adapted 

to: 

receive a statistical analysis request corresponding to [a] two or more selected investments; 

based upon investment data pertaining to the 

two or more selected investments, perform a 

resampled statistical analysis to generate a 

resampled distribution; and, 

provide a report of the resampled distribution.

Varma J.A. 331 (amended version: additions underlined; 

bracketed word deleted). 

Claim 29, also amended during reexamination, is another claim involving two or more investments:

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/10/2016
6 IN RE: VARMA

29. A system for providing statistical analysis 

of investment information over an information 

network comprising:

a financial data database for storing investment data pertaining to two or more investments; 

a front end subsystem for receiving a statistical 

analysis request corresponding to two or more 

selected investments; 

a parallel processor, wherein the parallel processor includes:

at least one processor for performing resampled 

statistical analysis based upon the statistical 

analysis request. 

InvestPic J.A. 742 (amendments underlined).

B 

In March 2012, IBM and SAS filed a request for inter 

partes reexamination of claims 1–31 of the ’291 patent—

claims lacking the language underlined in the quotations 

just above.1 IBM and SAS argued in the reexamination 

request that the claims are anticipated by each of two 

prior-art references, Sortino and Barraquand, and in any 

event rendered invalid for obviousness by those references, with or without additional references. 

Sortino, the reference of primary importance in these 

proceedings, discloses using a bootstrap method to gain 

better information about the expected returns on an asset, 

including the uncertainty associated with the expected 

returns, than is given by the mean and standard devia-

 

1 IBM and SAS were joined by Algorithmics Inc. in 

requesting the inter partes reexamination, but Algorithmics is not an appellee in this court.

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 7

tion of historical data. Sortino speaks of nine asset categories, one being the Standard & Poor’s 500 index (S&P 

500), and describes performing bootstrap analyses on 

historical data. As an example, Sortino describes sorting

the data for the S&P 500 into seven economic scenarios 

(e.g., deep recession, mild inflation, chaos) and performing

a separate bootstrap analysis on the data from each of the 

scenarios. After the separate bootstrap analyses, Sortino 

indicates, the user may inject a subjective judgment into a 

final set of figures by weighting the results from the seven 

scenarios to arrive at a combined distribution for the 

asset. For example, if the investor believes there to be “a 

2% chance of a deep recession, a 10% chance of a moderate recession, an 8% chance of a stagnant period, a 60% 

chance of growth and a 20% chance of moderate inflation,” 

InvestPic J.A. 216; Varma J.A. 288, the results of the

separate bootstrap analyses for those five data sets may 

be weighted according to the investor’s beliefs to give the 

combined distribution. As for Barraquand, that reference

discloses an error-reduction technique (which it calls 

“quadratic resampling”), applied to pricing a class of 

financial assets and implemented on a parallel processor.

The examiner granted the request for inter partes 

reexamination as to claims 1–5, 8–16, 19–21, and 29–31 

in May 2012. The examiner then rejected all of those 

claims: claims 1–5, 10–16, 19, and 21 for anticipation by 

Sortino; claims 8, 9, 20, and 29–31 for obviousness over 

Sortino in view of other references. The examiner found 

that “Sortino’s teaching of identification and use of different scenarios for analyses” meets the “bias parameter” 

limitation (in the unamended claims). InvestPic J.A. 723. 

The examiner cited the assertion by IBM and SAS that 

InvestPic effectively “want[ed] to ‘rewrite’ the claim 

language as ‘wherein the bias parameter determines a 

degree of randomness in the selection of samples in a 

resampling process’ reading in limitations regarding how 

and when the ‘bias parameter’ must operate.” InvestPic

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/10/2016
8 IN RE: VARMA

J.A. 721 (emphasis in original). In response, InvestPic 

amended the claims. Claims 1 and 11 were amended to 

clarify that “the bias parameter determines a degree of 

randomness in sample selection in a resampling process.” 

InvestPic J.A. 735, 738 (emphasis added). InvestPic also

amended claim 29, on which claims 30 and 31 depend, to 

include the language underlined in the block quote above, 

including the requirement that the system “receiv[e] a 

statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more 

selected investments.” InvestPic J.A. 724. 

After entering the claim amendments, the examiner 

again rejected claims 1–5, 10–16, 19, and 21 for anticipation by Sortino and claims 8, 9, 20, and 29–31 for obviousness over Sortino and other prior art. The examiner 

separately rejected claim 29 for anticipation by Barraquand and claims 30–31 for obviousness over Barraquand and other prior art.

InvestPic appealed to the Board, arguing that Sortino 

does not teach a bias parameter that is applied in sample 

selection in a resampling process, as required by claims 

1–5, 8–16, and 19–21; Sortino does not disclose two or

more investments, as required by claims 29–31; and 

Barraquand does not teach a resampling method at all. 

The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims 

for anticipation and obviousness over Sortino. It did not 

reach the alternative, Barraquand-based grounds of 

rejection of claims 29–31.

For the requirement of using a bias parameter in 

sample selection, the Board found “that Sortino teaches 

the application of bias after an initial selection by application of the various enumerated scenarios.” InvestPic, 

2015 WL 1456097, at *3. For the requirements involving 

two or more investments, the Board gave several reasons 

for finding that Sortino suggests the ability to analyze two 

or more investments. The Board relied on Sortino’s

ability to conduct distinct analyses of different investCase: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 9

ments seriatim, which it thought sufficed because of “[t]he 

absence of a temporal limitation from Owner’s claims 

indicating that ‘two or more investments’ are analyzed at 

the same time.” Id. The Board also cited the transitional 

term “comprising” in claim 29, which indicates that the 

claim is open-ended, and the claim’s use of the indefinite 

article “a” when introducing “a statistical analysis request,” which has been construed to mean “one or more.” 

Therefore, the Board found that although two requests 

would be necessary in the Sortino system to analyze two 

or more investments, using “multiple ‘requests’ to analyze 

‘two or more investments[ ]’ shows or suggests the claimed 

feature.” Id. at *4. 

C 

In June 2012, after the examiner had granted the request for inter partes reexamination of claims 1–5, 8–16, 

19–21, and 29–31, SAS requested an ex parte reexamination of claims 22–31 of the ’291 patent. Claims 22–28 

claim systems for performing a statistical analysis of 

financial data over a network. Claim 22, on which claims 

23–28 originally depended, is quoted above. Claim 24, 

before amendment, required that the claim 22 statistical 

analysis request include a bias parameter. The amended 

version of claim 24, now independent, does not involve a 

requirement of “two or more” selected investments, but it 

does require (as relevant here) that the bias parameter 

“determine[ ] a degree of randomness in sample selection 

in a resampling process.”

The examiner granted the request for reexamination 

of claims 22–28, then confirmed the validity of claims 26–

28 but rejected claims 22–25 (when lacking the underlined language) for obviousness over the combination of 

Sortino, Barraquand, and the prior-art patent Maggioncalda (U.S. Patent No. 6,012,044). Maggioncalda describes a user interface for a financial advisory system 

that operates over a computer network. The examiner 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/10/2016
10 IN RE: VARMA

determined that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to use 

an interactive computer based financial advisory system, 

as taught by Maggioncalda, to perform statistical analysis 

of investment options, as taught by Sortino.” Varma J.A. 

305–06. Further, the examiner determined that it would 

have been obvious to use the parallel-processing computer 

system “taught by Barranquand [sic] in order to be able to 

perform the calculations more quickly.” Varma J.A. 306.

Varma then amended claims 22, 24, and 25 by rewriting claims 24 and 25 in independent form, adding the 

above-underlined language regarding “two or more selected investments” to claims 22 and 25, and specifying that 

the bias parameter of claim 24 (applicable even to a single 

investment) “determines a degree of randomness in 

sample selection in a resampling process.” Varma J.A. 

331–33. The examiner entered the amendments and 

again rejected claims 22–25 for obviousness over Sortino, 

Maggioncalda, and Barraquand. 

Varma appealed to the Board, arguing that because 

the bias parameter of claim 24 “cannot be construed as 

merely biasing in general, or biasing the randomness of 

something else outside of sample selection in the 

resampling process itself,” Varma J.A. 1005, Sortino does 

not disclose the requisite bias parameter. Varma also 

argued that Sortino does not teach a resampled analysis 

of two or more investments as required by claims 22, 23, 

and 25. The Board agreed with the examiner on both 

points. 

For claim 24 and its bias-parameter limitation, the 

Board found “that claim 24 does not mandate that the 

bias parameter be utilized during initial sample selection” 

and Sortino suggests a bias parameter by “teach[ing] the 

application of bias after an initial selection by application 

of the various enumerated scenarios.” Varma, 2014 WL 

7186800, at *4. For the other claims and their two-ormore-investments limitations, the Board found that 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 11

Sortino suggests the ability to analyze two or more investments. As in the inter partes reexamination, the 

Board noted that the claims use the transitional term 

“comprising” and the indefinite article “a” in the claim 

term “a statistical analysis request,” and on that basis it 

found “that a system such as that disclosed by Sortino, 

that may utilize multiple ‘requests’ to analyze ‘two or 

more investments,’ shows or suggests the claimed feature.” Id. at *3. The Board also observed that the examiner “note[d] that Sortino discloses analysis of the S&P 

500 index, which comprises 500 underlying stocks (or 

investments).” Id. at *2.

Varma appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 141(b), challenging 

the Board’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–16, 19–25, and 29–

31. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Where there is no dispute about findings or evidence 

of facts extrinsic to the patent, we review de novo the 

Board’s determination of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Straight Path IP Grp., 

Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). We review the Board’s anticipation determination 

for substantial evidence. In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 

1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determination de novo and underlying 

factual findings for substantial evidence. Belden Inc. v. 

Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

A 

Varma’s first challenge is to the Board’s understanding of the bias parameter required by claims 1–5, 8–16, 

19–21, and 24. For the inter partes reexamination, as it 

comes to us, dependent claims 2–5, 8–10, 12–16, and 19–

21 rise or fall with independent claims 1 and 11. For the 

ex parte reexamination, claim 24 is the sole claim before 

us presenting this issue.

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/10/2016
12 IN RE: VARMA

As a threshold matter, we reject the suggestion that 

Varma’s claim-construction position on the key point 

involving the bias-parameter limitations is new on appeal 

and therefore should be disregarded. Varma consistently 

asserted to the examiner and the Board the meaning of 

the bias parameter limitation asserted here—that the 

bias parameter must be applied to the selection of samples from a sample space, as distinguished from the 

creation of a sample space or the post-sampling combination of results calculated separately from the separate 

sampling analyses of distinct sample spaces. See, e.g., 

InvestPic J.A. 759–60, 1245–47, 1372–75; Varma J.A. 

355–60, 1035–36.

On the merits, we agree with Varma that there is only 

one reasonable meaning of the claim language, considered 

alone and in light of the specification: the bias parameter 

is used in selecting samples from the sample space, not in 

creating a sample space, and not in making arithmetic 

combinations of statistical measures previously calculated 

from separate, resampled analyses. The claim language 

makes this clear. It explicitly states that the bias parameter “determines a degree of randomness in sample selection in a resampling process.” InvestPic J.A. 735–42; 

Varma J.A. 331–32. Claim 1 clearly differentiates between “selecting a sample space,” which occurs in step (a), 

and “sample selection,” which occurs in step (b). The bias 

parameter is applied in sample selection in step (b), not in 

step (a)’s creation of a sample space. And “sample selection” is complete before any process of taking calculated 

statistical results of several distinct sampling processes 

and combining those measures in a preferred way. 

The specification reinforces the distinctions that are 

clear in the claim language. The specification first describes the bootstrap process generally: “In step 920, a 

sample space x is selected. In step 925, a statistical function based on the sample space data is computed . . . . In

step 930, bootstrap samples . . . are generated from the 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 13

sample space using a resampling process.” ’291 patent, 

col. 11, lines 16–20 (emphases in original). The sample 

space, therefore, is created before the resampling process, 

and bootstrap samples are generated from the sample 

space. The specification then describes a bootstrap process using the bias parameter. The sample space is 

created in step 1115. See id., col. 12, lines 60–66 (“In 

particular, in step 1115, a sample space is determined 

using the sample_size parameter received in step 1105. 

Because financial database 150d may store samples for 

investments for many different time periods, in step 1115, 

a set of relevant samples for the resampled statistical 

analysis requested by the client 105 is determined.”)

(emphases in original). The bias parameter is applied in 

step 1135, after the creation of the sample space. Id., col. 

14, lines 5–10 (“In step 1135, the bias parameter received 

in step 1105 is analyzed. If no bias is selected (i.e., bias=

–1 and data is to be selected randomly), control passes to 

step 1045 (‘no’ branch of step 1035). If bias<>0, in step 

1040, a bias initialization algorithm is performed as 

described in detail below.”).

The particular descriptions of use of a bias parameter 

confirm the point: the samples that produce a single 

resampling analysis are all drawn from a given sample 

space, with the bias parameter determining selection of 

each particular sample. “The ‘bias’ parameter is a decimal value that is either –1 or between 0 and 1 . . . .” Id., 

col. 11, lines 55–56. “A value of –1 indicates that the 

resampling process should be conducted purely randomly.” Id., col. 11, lines 58–59. When “the ‘bias’ parameter 

is between 0 and 1, sampling is performed so that b% of 

the samples are ‘up’ days and 1−b% of the samples are 

‘down’ days, where b=bias. Thus, if b=1, only ‘up’ days 

will be selected and if b=0 only ‘down’ days are selected.” 

Id., col. 11, lines 59–64. In the described algorithm for 

the process, “the sample space is separated into two sets, 

a first set including only ‘up’ days and a second set includCase: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/10/2016
14 IN RE: VARMA

ing only ‘down’ days.” Id., col. 16, lines 10–15. Each 

sample is drawn from either one set or the other based on 

whether a randomly generated number between 0 and 1 

is or is not less than the bias parameter (between 0 and 

1); the distribution of samples, therefore, depends on 

where between 0 and 1 the bias parameter is set. Id., col. 

16, lines 15–22. In this process, the bias parameter 

controls how samples are selected from the sample space

to produce a resampling result for that sample space; it 

does not change the definition of the sample space itself. 

The process leading to the amendments of claims 1, 

11, and 24 further supports this reading of the bias parameter. In the inter partes reexamination, when the 

examiner initially rejected the claims, he stated that 

Varma’s arguments about the bias parameter were effectively “‘rewrit[ing]’ the claim language as ‘wherein the 

bias parameter determines a degree of randomness in the 

selection of samples in a resampling process’ reading in 

limitations regarding how and when the ‘bias parameter’ 

must operate.” InvestPic J.A. 721 (emphasis in original). 

Varma then proposed amendments to add “in sample 

selection,” amendments “essentially and helpfully suggested by the Examiner.” InvestPic J.A. 749. Based on

the amended claim language, Varma specifically argued 

the distinction between “bias in the selection of sample 

space to do resampling from” and “selection of samples 

from that sample space, for example, once that space had 

been selected.” InvestPic J.A. 749–50 (emphases omitted). 

In the ex parte reexamination, Varma amended claim 24 

in the same manner and for the same reasons. 

Given the proper understanding of the bias-parameter

limitation, the Board’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–16, 19–

21, and 24 must be reversed. The Board’s rulings in both 

reexamination proceedings rely solely on Sortino for this 

limitation, “find[ing] that Sortino teaches the application 

of bias after an initial selection by application of the 

various enumerated scenarios.” InvestPic, 2015 WL 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 14 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 15

1456097, at *3; Varma, 2014 WL 7186800, at *4. But 

Sortino does not teach or suggest biasing how samples are

selected from a defined sample space to arrive at a 

resampling-based measure for that sample space. 

Sortino allows for the introduction of bias in two 

ways: (1) by sorting the data into seven economic scenarios to perform separate bootstrap analyses of each scenario; and (2) weighting the individual results of the separate 

bootstrap analyses for the seven scenarios to produce a 

combined distribution. Neither option biases the selection 

of samples in the resampling process as required by the 

claims. First, Sortino is clear that once a scenario is 

created, all selection of samples from that scenario is 

random, not biased. InvestPic J.A. 214 n.4 (“All of the 

monthly returns for a given asset in a given scenario were 

entered into a file. Twelve monthly returns were randomly selected from this file and combined to make a single 

annual return. This procedure was repeated 200 times 

with replacement to generate the underlying distribution 

for a given asset in a given scenario.”); Varma J.A. 286 

n.4. Second, the post-bootstrap weighting of scenarios 

similarly does not change the selection of samples from a 

sample space, and therefore is not the result of the application of a bias parameter within the meaning of the ’291 

patent. And none of the expert declarations, all of which 

were submitted before the clarifying claim amendments, 

supports finding that Sortino biases the selection of 

samples from the sample space when performing a 

resampling process. 

Finally, we note that the Board did not find, and we 

have not been shown, that Sortino’s process—which sorts 

data into seven economic scenarios, performs a random 

bootstrap analysis on each individual scenario, and then 

allows for arithmetic combination of measures separately 

derived for each of the scenarios—is mathematically equal 

to applying a bias in choosing samples from a sample 

space to create bootstrap samples. We therefore need not 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 15 Filed: 03/10/2016
16 IN RE: VARMA

decide whether such a showing, if made, would matter to 

the analysis. Cf. Zenith Labs., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers 

Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (all claim 

elements must be proved to be met, even if the required 

evidence is scientifically redundant). Therefore, we 

conclude that Sortino does not disclose a bias parameter 

that operates on the selection of samples from a sample 

space in a resampling process.

B 

Varma also challenges the Board’s understanding of 

“a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or 

more selected investments,” as required by claim 22 (and 

claims 23 and 25) and claim 29 (and claims 30–31). 

InvestPic J.A. 742–43; Varma J.A. 331–33. As with the 

bias-parameter limitation, we reject the suggestion that 

Varma’s claim-construction position on the key point 

involving this claim limitation is new in this appeal. On 

this point, the interpretation of the claims that Varma 

asserts here is consistent with the meaning it asserted to 

the examiner and the Board in the reexamination proceedings—that the statistical analysis requested is one 

that covers two or more investments. See, e.g., InvestPic

J.A. 761–64, 1262–63, 1390–92; Varma J.A. 336–40, 

1006–13. 

In finding this claim limitation met by Sortino, the

Board rejected Varma’s position. The Board implicitly 

relied on two related but different interpretations. In 

Interpretation 1, the claim phrase embraces a request 

that calls for a statistical analysis of a single investment. 

Thus, the Board reasoned that Sortino is covered by the 

claim even if “two requests would be necessary in the 

Sortino system to accomplish an analysis of ‘two or more 

investments.’” InvestPic, 2015 WL 1456097, at *3; Varma, 2014 WL 7186800, at *2. In Interpretation 2, the 

claim phrase embraces a request that calls for statistical 

analyses of at least two investments, but each analysis 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 16 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 17

may be an analysis of a single investment, and the singleinvestment analyses may take place seriatim. Thus, the

Board agreed with the examiner that there is no “temporal limitation from [the] claims indicating that ‘two or 

more investments’ are analyzed at the same time.” InvestPic, 2015 WL 1456097, at *3; Varma, 2014 WL 

7186800, at *2. We conclude that both interpretations are 

unreasonable.

The error of Interpretation 1 is plain from the claim 

phrase at issue. The phrase requires “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments.” InvestPic J.A. 742–43; Varma J.A. 331–33. That

language on its face excludes Interpretation 1. A single 

request must correspond to at least two investments. 

The Board relied on the claims’ use of “comprising” as 

the transitional term, but that term does not support 

Interpretation 1. Although the transitional term “comprising” indicates that the claim is open-ended, the term 

does not render each limitation or phrase within the claim

open-ended. See Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 

1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Comprising” means that the claim can be met by a system that 

contains features over and above those specifically required by the claim element, but only if the system still 

satisfies the specific claim-element requirements: the 

claim does not cover systems whose unclaimed features 

make the claim elements no longer satisfied. Thus, here, 

a claim-covered system may receive more than one request, but it must in particular be adapted to receive “a 

request” that itself corresponds to two or more selected 

investments.

The Board also cited the indefinite article “a” before 

“statistical analysis request” to support Interpretation 1. 

But while “a” sometimes is non-restrictive as to number, 

permitting the presence of more than one of the objects 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 17 Filed: 03/10/2016
18 IN RE: VARMA

following that indefinite article, context matters even as 

to whether the word has that meaning. See Harari v. Lee, 

656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). And here the question is not whether there can be more than one request in 

a claim-covered system: there can. Rather, the question is

whether “a” can serve to negate what is required by the 

language following “a”: a “request” (a singular term) that

“correspond[s]” to “two or more selected investments.” It 

cannot. For a dog owner to have “a dog that rolls over and 

fetches sticks,” it does not suffice that he have two dogs, 

each able to perform just one of the tasks. In the present 

case, no matter how many requests there may be, no 

matter the variety of the requests the system may receive, 

the system must be adapted to receive a request that 

itself corresponds to at least two investments.2 

 

2 The language here is non-technical, and nothing 

in the words after “request,” based on ordinary usage or 

context or other intrinsic evidence, implies or even tends 

to suggest a plurality of requests. In this respect, the 

phrase is different from “a contact hole for source wiring 

and gate wiring connection terminals” in Eidos Display, 

LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 779 F.3d 1360, 1365–68 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015), where both the technical context and intrinsic 

evidence made clear that there could not be a single hole 

for all the connection terminals. The phrase at issue here 

also differs from an example used in Eidos: “I am going to 

create an electric car for the United States and United 

Kingdom.” Id. at 1365. That phrase itself suggests that 

the “car” referred to is a design that would naturally 

embrace the necessary country-specific variations in 

implementation. In the present case, there is no contextual or intrinsic-evidence basis for inferring from the 

words that come after “request” that the singular term 

embraces a plurality in some sense.

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 18 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 19

While the language of the “a statistical analysis request” phrase itself makes clear the unreasonableness of 

Interpretation 1, it is other claim language—specifically, 

language in claim 22 (found also in claim 25)—that makes 

Interpretation 2 unreasonable as an understanding of the 

“a statistical analysis request” phrase. Claim 22 requires 

that the plurality of processors be adapted not only to 

“receive a statistical analysis request corresponding to 

two or more selected investments,” but also to do these 

additional things: “based upon investment data pertaining to the two or more selected investments, perform a

resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled 

distribution; and provide a report of the resampled distribution.” Varma J.A. 331 (emphases added). The reference to “the two or more selected investments” is to the 

immediately preceding “a statistical analysis request” 

language. A single resampled statistical analysis must be 

performed based on data pertaining to those two or more 

investments. A single resampled distribution must be 

generated by that analysis, and the single distribution 

must be reported. The interlocking of singulars in that 

language makes it unmistakable that at least two investments must be the subject of each statistical analysis that 

is the subject of the request in the claim phrase at issue. 

For those reasons, the language of claims 22 and 25 

precludes Interpretation 2 for those claims. 

Similar language is not found in claim 29, the lone 

claim in the inter partes reexamination that raises the 

“two or more selected investments” issue. But the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same 

patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, 

overcome only if “it is clear” that the same phrase has 

different meanings in different claims. Fin Control Sys. 

Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 

2001); see Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of 

Phoenix, Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012); American Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 19 Filed: 03/10/2016
20 IN RE: VARMA

1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011); PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 

484 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007). IBM and SAS have

not pointed to, and we do not see, anything in the language of claim 29, or the specification or prosecution 

history, that provides the required basis for giving the 

phrase in claim 29 a meaning different from the meaning 

of the same phrase in claims 22 and 25. And we do not 

see why the same-meaning principle is inapplicable here 

just because the amended versions of the claims were 

introduced in two different reexamination proceedings 

(about three weeks apart): claim 29 in the inter partes 

reexamination on March 15, 2013; claims 22 and 25 in the 

ex parte reexamination on April 5, 2013. If allowed, the 

claims would be claims within a single patent. 

The amendment history of the claims reinforces the 

conclusion that Interpretation 2 is unreasonable: Varma 

specifically argued against that interpretation in both 

proceedings based on the language at issue. After the 

unamended claims 29–31 were rejected in the inter partes 

reexamination, Varma amended claim 29 to add “corresponding to two or more selected investments.” InvestPic

J.A. 742. In doing so, Varma invoked that language to 

distinguish Sortino, arguing that “all of [Sortino’s] analyses were based upon a single asset at a time.” InvestPic

J.A. 766. Similarly, Varma amended claims 22 and 25 in 

the ex parte reexamination in response to the examiner’s 

rejections based on the examiner’s implicit adoption of 

Interpretation 2: the examiner found that a request step 

in Sortino was “implicit, or at least obvious, because 

various analyses on S&P 500 were actually performed.” 

Varma J.A. 305. Varma added the two-or-moreinvestments limitation and argued that “Sortino disclosed 

a statistical analysis request corresponding only to a 

single investment or asset category.” Varma J.A. 337

(emphasis in original). 

We conclude that the Board relied on unreasonable 

interpretations of claim language in claims 22, 23, 25, and 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 20 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 21

29–31. The proper remedy, we also hold, is to vacate the 

Board’s rejections of those claims for reconsideration of 

anticipation and obviousness under the correct claim 

construction. 

In the appeal from the ex parte reexamination, the 

Director of the PTO argues that we may affirm even 

under the correct claim construction based on the observation by the Board and examiner that Sortino performs 

an analysis of the S&P 500 index and the S&P 500 index 

corresponds to 500 underlying securities. IBM and SAS 

do not make this argument (as to claim 29) in the inter 

partes reexamination appeal. We reject the Director’s 

position. There is no basis for treating the single index 

investment (bought by investors as a single investment)

as two or more investments in the assets whose values 

define the value of the index investment. 

Sortino treats the S&P 500 index as a single asset, 

and it nowhere provides an analysis of the securities

underlying the S&P 500 index. IBM and SAS themselves 

note that Sortino “describes the S&P 500 index as merely 

one exemplary investment.” Brief for Appellees IBM 

Corp. and SAS Institute Inc. at 52, InvestPic LLC v. IBM

(No. 2015-1667). In his expert declaration, Dr. Sortino 

stated that the analysis shown in his paper “bootstrapped 

the whole S&P portfolio, not the lowest level underlying 

individual securities (e.g., specific stocks, bonds, futures, 

etc.) within the portfolio,” further noting that “this distinction may seem subtle or even trivial, but it in fact has 

important practical implications.” Varma J.A. 781 ¶ 21. 

Dr. Savage made a similar point, describing “an asset 

category such as an S&P Index Fund [a]s itself an asset.” 

Varma J.A. 730 ¶ 17. There is no identified record basis 

for a contrary understanding. Because the S&P 500 

index is consistently treated as a single asset, Sortino’s 

analysis of the S&P 500 index alone cannot meet the twoor-more-investments claim limitation.

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 21 Filed: 03/10/2016
22 IN RE: VARMA

On the other hand, we do not reverse the cancellation 

of the claims that involve this claim limitation. One 

reason is that paragraphs 20 and 22 of Dr. Sortino’s 

declaration raise a question—which we do not answer—

about whether the prior-art Sortino article might teach or 

suggest a single resampling analysis of at least two assets. To be sure, in the Sortino article itself, the figures 

relate only to a single asset category, the S&P 500 index; 

and the article states that the “statistics support our

earlier claims about the shape of uncertainty for the S&P 

500 and these results held for all nine asset categories 

studied,” with no statement as to carrying out any single 

bootstrap analysis of at least two asset categories together. InvestPic J.A. 216; Varma J.A. 288. But in his declaration, Dr. Sortino said the following, seemingly about the 

work supporting his article: 

The asset allocation model we developed at this 

time and which was marketed to a number of 

firms used stocks and bonds from different countries. In both cases it is important to estimate the 

correlations between the asset categories and create a variance-covariance matrix. While we estimated covariance and correlation between the 

asset categories (e.g., stocks, bonds) we did not 

want to, need to, and did not, estimate the much 

more complex correlation and covariance relationships between all the underlying individual securities (individual stocks, bonds or other financial 

instruments within the portfolios). 

InvestPic J.A. 294–95 ¶ 20; Varma J.A. 780–81 ¶ 20 

(emphasis in original). Dr. Sortino added that “for asset 

allocation we only needed to measure the covariance 

between the overall asset categories (e.g., the entire S&P, 

Japan, etc.).” InvestPic J.A. 295 ¶ 22; Varma J.A. 781

¶ 22 (emphasis in original). 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 22 Filed: 03/10/2016
IN RE: VARMA 23

The Board did not rely on those paragraphs of the 

Sortino declaration. InvestPic, 2015 WL 1456097, at *3–

4; Varma, 2014 WL 7186800, at *2–3. We will not address in the first instance the meaning and legal significance of those passages, or whether reliance on them at 

this stage is procedurally appropriate. We leave such 

questions to the Board on remand. See Ariosa Diagnostics 

v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015).

Varma also challenges the adequacy of the Board’s 

analysis regarding the obviousness rejections of claims 22, 

23, 25, and 29–31. We do not address that challenge, 

because we are independently vacating and remanding for 

the Board to reconsider those claims in light of the proper 

claim construction. We also do not address the examiner’s 

alternative grounds of rejection of claims 29–31 based on 

Barraquand. The Board stated that it was not reaching

those grounds. InvestPic, 2015 WL 1456097, at *6. 

Whether to reach to those grounds, and, if so, whether 

they are sound, are determinations to be made in the first 

instance by the Board on remand. 

C 

Varma challenges the Board’s understanding of 

“resampled statistical analysis,” a term that appears in 

all claims at issue.3 Varma suggests that the term refers 

to “a statistical analysis using resampling of data involving multiple investments for multiple time periods, 

wherein the interrelationships in the financial data are 

preserved.” Brief for Appellant, InvestPic LLC at 35, 

InvestPic LLC v. IBM (No. 2015-1667); Brief for Appel-

 

3 Claims 1–5 and 8–10 use the term “re-sampled 

statistical method,” but Varma treats the terms as equivalent. Brief for Appellant, InvestPic LLC at 35, InvestPic 

LLC v. IBM (No. 2015-1667). 

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 23 Filed: 03/10/2016
24 IN RE: VARMA

lant, Samir Varma at 37, In re Varma (No. 2015-1502). 

That proposed construction goes far beyond the language 

supposedly being construed, which refers to a statistical 

technique that indisputably may be used for analysis 

outside the financial context altogether and, indeed, may 

be used for single-investment analysis, as many of the 

patent claims at issue here make clear. We reject Varma’s narrowing construction of “resampled statistical 

analysis.”

CONCLUSION

We reverse the Board’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–16, 

19–21, and 24. We vacate the Board’s rejection of claims 

22, 23, 25, and 29–31 and remand for further proceedings 

regarding those claims.

Costs awarded to InvestPic in No. 2015-1667. 

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND

REMANDED

Case: 15-1502 Document: 46-2 Page: 24 Filed: 03/10/2016