Appeal No. 2006-1126
Application No. 10/455,701
below the current market price.” Thus, we find that the combination of Bondy
and Lupien teaches the stop value being a predetermined amount or percentage
of value in the investment. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 15, 16 and 18.
Claims 20, 22, 23 and 25.
On page 16 of the brief, appellant argues that the rejection of claim 20 is
improper, as Lupien does not teach an algorithm for automatically outputting a
trade request. As stated supra with respect to claim 7, we find that Lupien does
teach automatically outputting a trade request. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
With respect to claims 22, 23 and 25, the appellant argues, on page 16 of
the brief, that the combination of Lupien and Bondy does not teach a system
which receives a stop value and sets an execution price for the moving stop
based upon the stop value or that the received stop value is a predetermined
percentage of the value of the investment as recited in claim 23 or 25.
As discussed supra with respect to claims 16 and 18, we find that the
combination of Bondy and Lupien teaches the stop value being a predetermined
amount or percentage of value in the investment. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 23 and 25.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007