Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
bids or only better bids, Harrington fails to show a priced offer
(that is the purpose of the invention in Harrington to find the
price) and does not show a market price and therefore does not
teach an order specifying a condition that seeks a specific
minimum relative price improvement" (Br22).
The examiner finds that Harrington teaches an "order
specifying a condition that seeks a specific minimum relative
price improvement" because "the system provides a bidder with a
message informing a bidder why her/his/their bid did not meet
requirements such as a minimum price" (EA21).
Appellants rely on the arguments in the brief (RBr9).
Initially, we note that while claim 55 recites "a specific
minimum relative price improvement," it does not recite relative
to what and does not recite relative to a market price; compare
this to claim 71. Nevertheless, this is a question of breadth.
We agree with appellants that the original issue auctions of
Harrington do not show a priced auction. As discussed in
connection with claim 14, the auctions in Figs. 10 and 11 specify
a value of the bonds to be sold, but the users bids on a coupon
and price, or yield, for each principal maturity it wants to
purchase in a maturity by maturity bid (col. 9, lines 23-39) or
for an aggregate purchase price in an all-or-none bid (col. 9,
lines 40-55). Since the Issuer's offer does not specify a price,
it would not have suggested an order "that seeks a specific
- 23 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007