Appeal No. 2006-1126
Application No. 10/455,701
persuade of us that the examiner’s rejection is in error. Accordingly, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10.
Claims 13, 15, 16 and 18.
On pages 14 and 15 of the brief, appellant recites a limitation of claim 13
and argues that claim 13 is patentable for the reasons set forth with respect to
claims 7 through 12.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument directed to claim 13. We
note that 37 CFR § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) states: “A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.” Thus, we do not consider appellant’s arguments directed to claim
13 on pages 14 and 15 of the brief to be sufficient to group claim 13 separately
from claim 7. Nonetheless, as stated supra, we are not persuaded by appellant’s
arguments directed to claim 7 and we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
13 for the reasons stated supra with respect to claim 7.
On page 15 of the brief, appellant argues that the combination of Bondy
and Lupien does not teach the stop value being a predetermined amount or
percentage of the investment item’s value as recited in claims 15, 16 and 18.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument. As noted supra with
respect to claim 7, Lupien discloses that the system operates to automatically
execute trades based upon user-defined algorithms. Bondy teaches an
algorithm for making trades using stop orders, Bondy also states: “You can set
the stop-order trigger at any price you choose – for example, 10 to 20 percent
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007