Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
routine bank practice for the bank to keep a record of the amounts, due dates, and
payment dates of all activities affecting loan and deposit accounts. The record of loan
surcharges corresponds to the inflation-determined accrual component recited in claim
5.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 4 and 5 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6, which is dependent on claim 4, rejected over the same
prior art as claim 4, and not separately argued, is affirmed for the same reasons as the
rejection of claim 4. 37 CFR § 1.192(c) (2001).
Claim 7, which depends on claim 1, specifies that “said deposit account is
payable on demand to each depositor.” The examiner addresses this claim in two
different ways. One is to argue that Mukherjee’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ accounts were ”on
demand” accounts despite the one-year restriction on withdrawals. Mukherjee at 51, 2d
full para. We agree with appellants (Brief at 19) that an “on demand” account can have
no restrictions on withdrawals. See American Heritage Dictionary 350 (copy enclosed)
(defining “demand deposit” to mean “[a] bank deposit that can be withdrawn by the
depositor immediately and without advance notice.”). The examiner alternatively
argued that it would have been obvious to offer the indexed deposit accounts as “on
demand” accounts in order to attract more deposits. Final Action at 9. Appellant has not
responded to this position, which strikes us as a reasonable one. The rejection of claim
7 is therefore affirmed.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007