Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
Harrington specify "a quantity of the product," this limitation
is not argued. It is noted that claim 1 does not require the
order to specify a price; compare claim 14. Claim 1 does not
recite a "contra-side order," as in claim 33, and we conclude
that the fact that a contra-side order does not exist does not
prevent an offer to sell from being an order.
Appellants argue that Harrington does not suggest orders
specifying exposure times (Br16).
We agree that Harrington does not disclose that the offering
specifies the exposure time as discussed in regard to claim 33.
Appellants argue (Br16) that Harrington does not suggest
"specifying a relative price with a price improvement with the
relative price being relative to a generally accepted indicator
of a prevailing current market price for the product." It is
further argued (Br16) that the "current best bid" in Harrington
is simply the best bid in the auction at the instant in time and
is not equivalent to a "generally accepted indicator of a
prevailing current market price."
The examiner finds that the "best bid" is a "generally
accepted indicator of a prevailing current market price," while
an incoming and better bid embodies a "price improvement" (EA14).
Appellants reply that the teaching of "better or best bids"
does not suggest a generally accepted indicator of a prevailing
current market price (RBr5). It is argued that the word
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007