Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
between the indexed deposit and loan accounts. The rejection of claim 9 is therefore
affirmed.
In addition, we note that rather than responding to the examiner’s reading of the
claimed “asset” on the indexed bonds issued by mortgage banks and industry,
appellant’s arguments incorrectly assume the examiner is reading the claimed “asset”
on the indexed loan accounts described at pages 50, 51, and 67-69 of Mukherjee. Brief
at 19-21. We have considered appellant’s arguments on this question and conclude
that the claimed “asset” alternatively reads on those indexed loan accounts. Appellant
does not deny that a loan agreement constitutes an asset comprising a financial
instrument having an obligated rate of return, as required by the claim. Instead,
appellant argues the rates of return on Mukerhjee’s indexed loans are not “indexed to a
rate of inflation,” which argument is unconvincing for the reasons given above in the
discussion of claim 1's requirement that the rate of return on the loan accounts be
responsive to a rate of inflation. The rejection of claim 9 is therefore additionally being
affirmed on this alternative ground.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and recites the additional step of “periodically
accounting for a portion of said rate of return of said financial instrument to said
allocated funds.” The examiner contends that periodic accounting would have been
inherent “since all banks MUST have performed accounting to satisfy regulators.” Final
Action at 12; Answer at 11. Appellant contends that “any inherency argument is
misplaced and must be supported by some evidence if it is to be maintained.” Brief at
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007