Appeal No. 2006-1126
Application No. 10/455,701
investment portfolio is stored on the computer (column 3, line 32, through
column 4, line 7). Lupien does not expressly disclose that the investment
item portfolio includes a first investment item maintained in an account
with one market trader, and a second investment item maintained in an
account with another market trader. However, official notice is taken that
it [is] well known for investment item portfolios to include investment items
traded on different exchanges and maintained in different accounts
(Lupien, column 8, lines 41- 51, and column 14, lines 21-34, is suggestive
of this). E.g., a portfolio may include both shares of stock, traded on a
stock exchange and maintained in an account with a stockbroker, and
pork belly futures, traded on a commodities exchange, and maintained in
an account with a commodity broker.
Further, the examiner responds to appellant’s arguments on page 12 of the
answer stating: “[A]lthough Lupien does not quite expressly disclose the
limitations of claim 9 (concerning which unchallenged official notice was taken),
Lupien’s words in column 13, lines 8-15 are highly suggestive.”
We concur with the examiner. Claim 9 recites:
9. The trading system of claim 7, wherein an investment portfolio is stored
on the computer, the investment item portfolio including a first investment
item maintained in an account with one market trader, and a second
investment item maintained in an account with another market trader and
wherein the computer outputs trade request signals to more than one
market trader.
Thus, the scope of claim 9 includes the requirement that the portfolio includes
investments maintained in accounts with different market traders. The
examiner’s statement of the rejection and response to the arguments cite to
numerous sections of Lupien which discloses the system issuing trade orders
through external brokers, dealers, or exchanges. We consider the examiner to
have presented ample evidence to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 9 have not presented sufficient facts to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007