Appeal No. 2005-2642 Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841 the manner in which each respective component is accrued or retired, the cash flow characteristics of the account can be significantly altered to fit the requisites of the individual or institution. Id. at col. 3, ll. 13-23. None of the patent claims have been amended during this reexamination proceeding. There are three independent claims (1, 24, and 36), of which claim 24 reads: 24. In combination, in an investment system for managing inflation risk: means for establishing data representative of a deposit account with an institution, the deposit account having a principal component representing the cash investment of a depositor for an account term, and an accrual component comprising a fixed interest component which is enhanced at a fixed interest rate times the principal component and a variable interest component which is enhanced at an index responsive to the rate of inflation times the principal component; and an account management dataprocessor [sic] including means for paying the deposit account over the term. D. The grouping of the claims At page 5 of the brief, appellant states that “[f]or purposes of this Appeal, all of the claims shall be considered separately and do not stand or fall together.” Under 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2001), which was in effect when the brief was filed, a group of claims rejected on the same ground can be treated as standing or falling together unless the brief states that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together and explains why the claims are believed to be separately patentable. As noted below, some of the rejected claims have not been separately argued and thus will be treated as standing or falling with their parent claims. E. The scope and meaning of the claims5 5 The copy of the claims provided in Appendix I to the brief is inaccurate in that it fails to accurately reproduce the formulas recited in claims 12 and 21. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007