Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
The rejection of claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, rejected over the same
prior art as claim 1, and not separately argued, is also affirmed. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)
(2001).
Independent claim 9 reads as follows:
9. A method for an institution to manage at least part of a program to
provide a depositor of finds with a rate of return on said funds variable with
a rate of inflation, comprising:
providing a deposit account by the institution for receiving said
funds from said depositor;
allocating at least a portion of said funds for obtaining an asset
whose rate of return adjusts with inflation;
using said allocated funds to obtain an asset whose return adjusts
with inflation and is determined using a dataprocesssor [sic],
said asset comprising a financial instrument having an
obligated rate of return indexed to a rate of inflation; and
paying said depositor a rate of return on funds relived [9] based on
a rate of inflation.
This claim does not employ either of claim 1's phrases “as a function of a rate of
inflation” and “responsive to a rate of inflation,“ which appellant has unsuccessfully
argued require a continuous relationship between the inflation adjustments and the
inflation rate. Appellant has not explained, nor is it apparent to us, why the language
9 This word is “received” in claim 42 (renumbered on issuance as patent claim 9)
in the “Supplemental Response” faxed to the USPTO on September 17, 1999, in
Application 09/184,752.
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007