Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
be to "buy" and "sell" reads limitations into the term and refers
again to the dictionary definition (EA12). The examiner states
that appellants mischaracterize the teachings by framing the buy
and sell relationship as between two issuers and arguing that an
issuer must also be able to buy bonds (EA12-13), and finds no
support for the term "buy" in claim 33 (EA13).
Appellants reply that the term "order" conveys to one
skilled in the art that the order could be a buy or sell order
(RBr2). "Claim 33 requires an order and a contra-side order
namely a buy order and a sell order." (RBr2.) It is argued that
claim 33 call for three distinct elements (orders, contra-side
orders, and responses) and the examiner does not squarely address
these features (RBr3). It is argued that a "response" is entered
in response to an auction and while orders and contra-side orders
have the common property that each has an exposure time, "the
response has a different property, i.e., the response is priced
relative to a prevailing current market price and has a price
improvement" (RBr3). Appellants argue that by equating "bids" in
Harrington to contra-side orders, there is no feature to
correspond to the claimed "response" (RBr3-4).
Claim 33 recites "orders," "contra-side orders," and
"responses." "Orders" and "contra-side orders" (which are
opposite position orders) specify a quantity of the financial
product and an exposure time and start an auction that lasts for
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007