Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
Appellant further asserts that “nowhere does Mukherjee teach o[r] suggest the
combination of an inflation-adjusted deposit account with an inflation-adjusted loan
account.” Brief at 17. Apparently, appellant is asking us to construe the claim as limited
to a combination of one inflation-adjusted deposit account and one inflation-adjusted
loan account. This argument fails because claim 36 recites “at least one deposit
account” and “at least one loan account” and, in any event, is an open-ended
“comprising” claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the rejection of claim 36. The
rejection of dependent claims 37 and 39-44 based on Mukherjee in view of Musmanno
is affirmed because those claims were not separately argued at pages 15-17 of the
brief, which discuss this ground of rejection. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2001).15
Summarizing, the rejection based on Mukherjee in view of Musmanno is affirmed
with respect to all of the claims rejected on that ground, i.e., claims 24-26, 28-32, 34-37,
and 39-44.
J. The merits of the rejection of claims 1-23, 31, 33, and 44 for obviousness
over Mukherjee in view of Bodie and further in view of Musmanno
As did the examiner, we will begin by addressing claims 31 and 33, which
depend on independent claim 24, and claim 44, which depends on claim 36. Final
15 Of these claims, claim 44 is also rejected on another ground, addressed infra.
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007