Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
Since claims 5, 12, 13, 26, and 73 have been rejected over
the combination of Harrington and Silverman, it is not logical
that these claims stand or fall together with claims that are
rejected only over Harrington. We separately address these
claims within the respective group.
Group I: claims 33-39
Claim 33 is rejected as anticipated by Harrington (FR5-6).
The examiner provides a dictionary definition of "order" as a
"commission or instruction to buy, sell or supply something," and
reads the claimed "order" on the offer to sell in Harrington and
the claimed "responses" on the bids to buy (FR2).
Initially, we find that Harrington is not directed to the
same invention as that disclosed by appellants. Harrington is
concerned with original issue auctions of financial instruments
as opposed to existing instruments (e.g., col. 2, lines 49-60).
It is evidently the examiner's position that the claims are broad
enough to be anticipated by or obvious over Harrington alone or
in combination and we have addressed the rejection in that light.
Appellants argue that Harrington does not teach "entering
orders for financial products ... by specifying in the order a
quantity of the financial product and an exposure time for which
the order is displayed for responses." It is argued that
"orders," as used in the claims, can be two-sided to be either a
"buy" order or a "sell" order (Br15). It is argued that
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007