Appeal No. 2006-1126
Application No. 10/455,701
been reached, Bondy does not teach that the computer automatically sets an
initial execution price based upon the stop vale. Appellant asserts that in Bondy
the broker enters the execution price into the computer after consulting the
investor. On page 10 of the brief, appellant acknowledges that Lupien teaches
an analysis of securities data with algorithms or criteria to automatically
generated orders. However, on page 11 of the brief, appellant argues that
Lupien “does not teach the automated submission of the generated orders to the
exchange.” Appellant points to several passages of Lupien to show that a
person must execute the order, such as the “F5(submit order)” function shown in
figure 6. Thus, appellant concludes that the combination of Bondy and Lupien
does not teach the invention of claim 7.
In response, the examiner asserts on page 8 of the answer, that Bondy
discloses setting an initial execution price based on the stop value, monitoring
the price of the investment item, changing the execution price if the investment
item increases in value and fixing the execution price if the investment decreases
in value. However, the examiner acknowledges that Bondy does not teach that a
computer automatically monitors the stocks and adjusts the execution price;
rather the investor monitors the stock price and makes the changes the trigger
price. The examiner asserts that it would be obvious to use a computerized
investment system such as taught by Lupien to perform Bondy’s method of
adjusting the stop order for a stock. In response to appellant’s argument, that
Lupien does not teach automatic submission of orders, the examiner argues that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007