Appeal No. 2005-2642
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,841
retiring the fixed interest component by a first schedule over the term” and “means for
paying the deposit principal component according to a second schedule over the term.”
For the reasons give above in the discussion of claim 44, the examiner is incorrect to
construe this language as reciting an annuity, i.e., payments over a plurality of iteration
periods. The examiner’s reliance on Bodie’s annuities is therefore superfluous and the
rejection of claim 1 is affirmed for the same reasons as is the rejection of claim 24 over
Mukherjee in view of Musmanno, since the payout provisions of claim 1 are broad
enough to be satisfied no matter how the principal and fixed interest components are
paid out. Alternatively, assuming the examiner is correct to construe claim 1 as reciting
an annuity, the rejection is affirmed for the alternative reasons given for our affirmance
of the rejection of claim 31.
Appellant does not specifically address any of dependent claims 2-23, instead
simply incorporating by reference the arguments made with respect to other rejected
claims. Brief at 18, 20. As those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons
given above, the rejection of claims 2-23 is also affirmed.
K. The rejection of claims 27 and 38 based on Mukherjee
and Musmanno, further in view of Williamson
Appellant’s only argument for the patentability of dependent claims 27 and 38 is
that they depend on parent claims 25 and 37, respectively, which appellant contends
are allowable over the cited prior art. Brief at 20. Because we have affirmed the
rejections of claims 25 and 37, we are also affirming the rejection of claims 27 and 38.
L. Summary
41
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007