Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
The examiner also correctly reads step e (“paying the deposit accounts”) on
Mukerhjee’s
indexed deposit accounts, citing Mukherjee’s mention (at 51, 3d para.) of withdrawals
from those accounts. Final Action at 5.
Turning now to the “loan” provisions, step c ( “providing at least one loan account
with said financial institution using funds deposited with the financial institution”) clearly
reads on Mukherjee’s disclosure that the same savings banks which offered indexed
deposits also offered indexed loans. Mukherjee at 50, last para. to 51, 1st para.; at 67,
last para. to 68, 1st full para.
Regarding step d (“adjusting the amount in the loan account as a [f]unction of a
rate of inflation using an account data processor”), the examiner is incorrect to rely on
“page 51 Paragraph 2 et seq.” and on “page 50, col. 2, Paragraph 3 [sic; page 51,
paragraph 3],” Final Action at 4-5, ¶ 8, because those paragraphs discuss indexed
deposit accounts rather than indexed loan accounts. However, that step can be read on
the parts of Mukherjee on which the examiner correctly reads step f (“receiving
repayment of the loan account by said financial institution in a manner where the funds
in the loan account obtain a rate of return responsive to a rate of inflation”). Those parts
are Mukherjee’s discussion of indexed loans at (a) page 50, last paragraph (“The initial
idea had been to apply an extra charge to all loans equal to half the rise in the index,
and then to use the funds to compensate all depositors for half their loss due to
inflation”); and (b) page 68, first full paragraph (“The Post Office Bank usually tied its
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007