Appeal No. 2006-1179 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/242,532
“sufficiently” in independent claims 41 and 53. From all of the
above, we find that an artisan would been able to readily
ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims. The rejection of
claims 41-57 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 41-44, 46, 49, 50,
52, 53, 55-57, 59, and 63-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being
clearly anticipated by Lupien.
Appellants assert (brief, page 13) that Lupien’s
satisfaction density profile (SDP) does not meet the limitation
of claim 41 that the PDI is executed against an order, or that
the auction is initiated only upon receipt of an order. It is
argued (brief, page 14) that claim 41 recites starting an auction
upon receiving the order. Appellants further argue (brief, page
15) that Lupien does not teach “immediately executing the
received order against the pre-defined relative indication to
satisfy the order and end the auction.” It is additionally
argued (id.) that Lupien teaches crossing SDPs which represent
orders, whereas claim 41 recites an auction. It is further
asserted (brief, page 16) that “none of the Lupien’s complex
processing however suggests ‘determining whether the received
predefined relative indication has a relative price that
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007