Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
5-10; col. 6, lines 19-21. It would have been obvious . . . to divide the
account into iteration periods, in order to compound interest payments
accurately for an arbitrary deposit term, and in order to maximize
compounding as was well-known in the art and suggested by
MUSAMANNO et al. (col. 6, lines 19-21).
Final Action at 5, ¶ 25 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s argument that Mukherjee’s
inflation-indexed accounts do not have a “term” which can be divided into a plurality of
iterations, Brief at 12; Reply brief at 5, is unconvincing for the reasons given in the
discussion of “term” in claim 24.
Appellant also argues (Brief at 13) that the examiner’s reliance on alleged
“common knowledge” of interest compounding contravenes In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This argument is unconvincing because the
examiner is not relying on a nonspecific assertion of common knowledge; rather, he is
relying on the artisan’s knowledge of certificates of deposit and interest compounding
techniques and advantages, and thus satisfies Lee’s requirement that general
knowledge, when relied on to negate patentability, “must be articulated and placed on
the record.” 277 F.3d at 1345, 61 USPQ2d at 1435. Interest compounding over a
plurality of iteration periods, such as daily, monthly, or quarterly, unquestionably
constituted general knowledge in the art and thus is suitable subject matter for official
notice under Ahlert and appropriately relied on for motivation under Lee.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007