Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
schedule over the term”) with dependent claim 4 (“wherein the deposit principle
payment means comprises means for making a lump sum payment at the end of the
term”). As a result, the examiner’s reliance on Bodie’s teaching of an annuity is
superfluous and we are affirming the rejection for obviousness over Mukherjee and
Musmanno for the reasons given above in the discussion of parent claim 36, to which
we add our observation that the payout provisions of claim 44 are broad enough to be
satisfied no matter how principal and accrual components are paid out. Assuming, on
the other hand, the examiner is correct to construe claim 44 as reciting an annuity, the
rejection is affirmed for the same reasons that we have affirmed the rejection of claim
31 for obviousness over Mukherjee, Bodie, and Musmanno.
Independent claim 1 is similar to independent claim 24 to the extent claim 1
recites (a) means for establishing data representative of a deposit account having a
deposit principal component and a deposit accrual component comprising a fixed
interest component and a variable interest component, (b) means for determining the
rate of inflation, (c) an account management data processor for servicing the deposit
account over its term, and (d) means for adjusting the amount in the deposit accrual
component in response to the rate of inflation. Thus, claim 1 to this extent is
unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Musmanno for the reasons given above in the
discussion of claim 24.
The other limitations of claim 1 have also been addressed in connection with
other claims. Specifically, claim 1 differs from claim 24 by further reciting “means for
40
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007