Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
Group III: claim 2
The rejection of claim 2 is reversed because we have
reversed the rejection of claim 1 from which it depends.
Group IV: claim 3
The examiner finds that Harrington does not teach a method
of determining a best bid and finds that Silverman teaches an
anonymous matching system that matches bids with orders based on
quantity, price, and time (oldest response) (EA10-11). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the
teaching of Harrington and Silverman to increase system
efficiency (EA11). The rejection does not explain away the
deficiencies of Harrington. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 3 over Harrington and Silverman is reversed.
Group V: claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 76
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 11, and 76 is reversed because
we have reversed the rejection of claim 1 from which they
directly or indirectly depend. Silverman does not cure the
deficiencies of Harrington, so the rejection of claim 12 over the
combination is also reversed.
Group VI: claims 14-23
Claim 14 is representative. Appellants may wish to consider
whether the recitation of matching the first order to responses
and contra-side orders, "with a first one of the responses that
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007