Appeal No. 2006-1126
Application No. 10/455,701
imposed by the system users. The system also permits investment managers to
directly execute trades or manually make changes to orders. See column 6,
lines 2 through 15, column 12, lines 42 through 49, and column 14, lines 11
through 39. Thus, we find that Lupien discloses a security trading system, which
allows for both automatic and manual submission of orders.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments that Lupien does not
teach an automatic submission of a generated order to an exchange. The
passages of Lupien and the depiction of a display screen (figure 6) with a caption
“F5(submit order)” do not definitively show that the system does not automatically
execute trades. Rather, as stated supra, we find that Lupien discloses that the
system operates to automatically execute trades and includes the ability for a
manual operation. Thus, appellant’s arguments have not convinced us of an
error in the examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 11 and 12 and we accordingly
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 11 and 12.
Claims 9-10
Appellant argues, on page 14 of the brief, that the rejection of claims 9
and 10 is improper for the reasons asserted with respect to claim 7. Also,
appellant argues: “Appellant’s attorney agrees that people maintain investments
in different accounts with different brokers. However, it would not have been
obvious to output trade request signals to the different brokers from a computer.”
On pages 5 and 6 of the answer, the examiner states:
Lupien teaches that the computer outputs trade request signals to more
than one individual selected market trader (column 4, lines 23-31), and an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007