Appeal No. 2004-2085
Application 09/272,542
minimum relative price improvement." As noted in connection with
claim 33, Harrington does not expressly disclose that the offer
specifies "an exposure time." In addition, if the bids in
Harrington correspond to a "response," Harrington does not teach
or suggest a "contra-side order" as previously discussed, or the
new limitation of a "contra-side order that has a condition
seeking a relative price improvement." The rejection of
claims 55-58 is reversed.
Group IX: claims 71, 72, 77, and 78
Claim 71 is representative.
Appellants argue (Br22) that Harrington does not disclose or
suggest the claim limitation "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." It is further argued (Br22) that Harrington does not
disclose or suggest the claim limitation "pre-defined relative
indications that correspond to a willingness to buy or sell the
product, the pre-defined relative indications specify a price
relative to a current market price and, which are dormant in the
system and undisclosed to participants until and unless matched
with the order."
The examiner finds that the "bids" in Harrington correspond
to the predefined relative indications "as each bid is
constructed relative to the product to [sic] up for bid and
- 24 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007