Appeal No. 2006-1179 Παγε 14
Application No. 10/242,532
claim 41, and that an SDP entered for a buy order that sits in
the system for an order to be entered, and is pegged to the
bid/ask midpoint, meets the claimed PDI. However, claim 41
additionally requires that “only receipt of an order initiates an
auction.” Upon considering the SDPs representing buy and sell
orders to meet both the claimed order and PDI, we find that both
the orders and the SDPs can initiate an auction; see the
alternative embodiment of col. 4, lines 44-47). Thus,
considering the orders represented by SDPs to be both an order
and a PDI, the limitations of claim 41 are not met. In addition,
even if we considered the buy order to be the claimed order and
considered the sell order SDP to be the claimed PDI the language
of independent claim 41 would still not be met because the PDI
would also be capable of initiating an auction. Accordingly, we
find that however Lupien is interpreted, that the limitations of
claim are not anticipated by Lupien.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of claim 41.
Independent claims 53, 57 and 65 also recite that only receipt of
an order initiates an auction. The rejection of claims 41-44,
46, 49, 50, 52, 53 , 55-57, 59, and 63-69 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007