Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
separate limitations. The examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to apply Harrington to the prior art sealed-bid and
silent and blind auction, but this does not address the specifics
of the modifications or the claim as a whole; e.g., if Harrington
implemented a sealed-bid auction, what would correspond to the
"relative indications" and the "responses to orders"?
We conclude that Harrington does not disclose or make
obvious the limitations of "predefined relative indications
specifying a quantity and being undisclosed to participants in
the market until and unless matched with an order" and having
both "relative indications" and "responses to orders." In
addition, Harrington does not disclose that the "orders specify a
price," as discussed in connection with claim 14, or "contra-side
orders," as discussed in connection with claim 33, or that the
system "determine a match to a first order with the predefined
relative indications, responses and contra-side orders during an
interval determined by the exposure time specified by the first
order." The rejection of claims 40 and 65-70 is reversed.
Group VIII: claims 55-58
Claim 55 is representative.
Appellants argue (Br31) that Harrington does not teach or
suggest an "order specifying a condition that seeks a specific
minimum relative price improvement." It is argued that "[w]hile
Harrington teaches minimum increments and whether to allow all
- 22 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007