Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
Claim 15 depends on claim 9 through claim 14. As noted above, the rejection of
claims 14 and 15 based on Mukherjee in view of Musmanno was affirmed along with the
rejection of claim 9 because claims 14 and 15 were not separately argued. The
rejection of claim 15 based on Mukherjee in view of Musmanno and further in view of
Weiner is not separately argued and is therefore also affirmed.
Independent claim 25 reads as follows:
25. A method for an institution to manage at least pat [sic] of a program
to provide a depositor of funds a rate of return on said funds comprising:
providing a deposit account by the institution for receiving said
funds from said depositor;
paying said depositor a rate of return on funds received based on a
rate of inflation;
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 said asset whose value adjusts
with inflation, said asset comprising a financial instrument
having a principal component periodically adjusted for
inflation using a data processor and an accrual component
including an interest rate fixed for a term;
said financial instrument
paying interest payments based on the inflation adjusted
principal component; [and]
paying the inflation-adjusted principal component at the end
of the term.
This claims differs from the previously discussed claims by calling for paying the entire
inflation-adjusted principal component at the end of the term, which the examiner refers
to as a “balloon payment” of principal. Final Action at 20-21, ¶ 33. As evidence that
balloon payments of principal were known, the examiner cites Weiner’s description of
various payment options for home equity loans. We assume the examiner is relying on
Weiner’s explanation that “[t]he most flexible plan calls for monthly interest payments,
37
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007