Appeal No. 2006-1179 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/242,532
satisfies the price of the received order.’” The examiner’s
position is found on pages 6-8 of the answer.
In the reply brief, appellants argue (pages 5 and 6) to the
effect that in Lupien, receiving an order does not start a
crossing of satisfaction density profiles, but rather that the
calculation of figure 8, step 112 starts a crossing. It is
argued (reply brief, page 6) that Lupien does not describe
auctions, does not start an auction or for that matter a crossing
upon receiving an order. It is further argued (id.) that
Appellant’s [sic, appellants’] claim 41 recites
properties of “pre-defined relative indications” and
“orders” that are distinct from each other. Appellant
[sic, appellants] claims two distinct elements, whereas
Lupien teaches two closely related elements orders and
satisfaction density profiles that represent the
orders. In contrast, Lupien does not have any analogue
for “pre-defined relative indications, since neither
the orders nor the satisfaction density profiles
possess all of the claimed features of the pre-defined
relative indications.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set
forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The inquiry as to
whether a reference anticipates a claim must focus on what
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007