Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
the explanation that “[t]he term of the account is the length of time from the initial
deposit until maturity (i.e., when the account has been entirely retired).” ‘461 Patent at
col. 4, ll. 61-64.6 Neither of these definitions nor any other language in the independent
claims requires that the claimed “term” of an account be predetermined, as argued by
appellant in (a) characterizing claim 24 as including “the requirement . . . that the
accounts have a specified term for paying out the account,” Brief at 10, and (b)
criticizing the accounts disclosed in the Mukherjee reference on the ground that they
“did not have a particular pre-set term for payout.” Id. While the ‘461 patent states that
“[t]he account term is generally divided into a plurality of adjustment or iteration periods”
and explains that “terms may be scheduled to include only a single iteration” (emphasis
added), col. 3, ll. 43-45, this language does not require that the number of plural
adjustment or iteration periods be set in advance; nor does it require that the retirement
date of a single-iteration account be specified in advance. Nor does the phrase
“schedule over a term,” which is employed in some claims, imply plural iteration periods
and thus preclude a single iteration and lump sum payment. To the contrary, claim 4,
which depends on claim 1, specifies that the “means for paying the deposit principal
component according to a second schedule over the term,” recited in claim 1, comprises
“a lump sum payment at the end of the term.”
F. The references
6 The “duration” of an account is “a mathematical expression of when the
average time-weighted dollar is paid out of the account.” ‘461 Patent at col. 4, ll. 64-66.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007