Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the rejection of claims 25 and 26.10
Claim 28, which also depends on claim 25 (reciting plural iteration periods),
specifies that the fixed interest rate is “compounded continuously.” This phrase is not
defined in the specification but is described at
http://www.riskglossary.com/link/compounding.htm (copy enclosed) as the limiting case
of interest compounding, in which interest is credited on a continuous basis (i.e., every
instant). The examiner’s position is that “continuous compounding of interest was
notoriously well-known and ubiquitous in the technical field of endeavor” and that it
would have been obvious to apply such compounding to Mukherjee’s accounts “in order
to maximize compounding and thus attract lenders (e.g., depositors).” Final Action at 6-
7, ¶ 10. Appellant responds, “While the Patent Owner would generally agree that
continuous compounding was known for conventional deposit accounts, the Patent
Owner does not agree that one of skill would have found it obvious to apply such
compounding in the context of an indexed account.” Brief at 14. This argument is
unconvincing because it fails to address the examiner’s proposed motivation, which we
find persuasive, for applying continuous compounding to the fixed interest component of
Mukherjee’s accounts. The rejection of claim 28 is therefore being affirmed.
10 Dependent claim 27 stands rejected on a different ground, discussed infra.
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007