Appeal No. 2006-1126
Application No. 10/455,701
Rejection at Issue
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bondy in view of Lupien. Claims 9
and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bondy
in view of Lupien and official notice. Throughout the opinion, we make reference
to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 7 through
13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 7, 8 11 and 12.
On pages 8 through 14 of the brief, appellant groups claim 7, 8, 11 and
12, and presents arguments why the rejection of this group of claims is improper.
Appellant argues, on page 9 of the brief, that while Bondy teaches a stop loss
order as a computerized order to sell a particular stock after its trigger price has
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007