Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
Appellant’s argument that Mukherjee’s indexed deposit accounts do not have
predetermined, fixed terms and therefore fail to satisfy claim 24’s requirement for a
deposit account “term” is also unconvincing. As explained supra, the account “term” is
not defined in the specification or in the claims as being predetermined and fixed and
thus is broad enough to read on the period running from the opening date of the
account to the closing date of the account. Furthermore, assuming for the sake of
argument that the claimed account “term” should be construed as being predetermined,
we agree with the examiner (Final Action at 3, ¶ 7) that it would be satisfied by
Mukherjee’s disclosure (at 51, 2d full para.) that withdrawals were not permitted from
indexed accounts during the first year, which effectively establishes a predetermined,
one-year minimum term for those accounts. Finally, assuming for the sake of argument
that the claimed account “term” must be even more narrowly construed as being both
predetermined and fixed, we also agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to implement inflation-indexed accounts of the type disclosed by Mukherjee as
certificate of deposit (CD) accounts having fixed terms. More particularly, the examiner
noted that “CD[s] explicitly had terms.” Final Action at 34, ¶ 57. Although the examiner
did not state that he was taking official notice that CDs having fixed terms were known
in the art prior to appellant’s filing date, we hold that that subject matter is clearly
appropriate for official notice. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ
418, 420-21 (CCPA 1970) (PTO tribunals, where it is found necessary, may take notice
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007