Appeal No. 2006-1874
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,351
network there is first a proposed debit to one account and a corresponding proposed credit to
another account, and then a subsequent posting to reflect the results of the debiting and crediting,
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do so in a system set up just
the same as that provided by the federal reserve, and to provide transaction records for the
proposed debiting and crediting as claimed. The records would have been desirable for purposes
of auditing and making sure that the correct amount of the commodity was transferred or that the
correct payment was made. We further take official notice that the federal reserve keeps
transaction records of the amount of gold to be debited from one account and credited to another
account as well as the identity of the accounts.
As for the record’s including the identity of the deposit site, based on the level of
ordinary skill in the art,1 as is reflected by the prior art references Marks and U.S. Patent No.
5,453,601,2 we find that whether or not the transaction record includes a reference to the location
of the deposit site is matter of ordinary selection for the person of ordinary skill in the art. Marks
reveals that one with ordinary skill would have known track accounting records on transactions,
e.g., account number and name, transaction date and amount (Marks, Column 11, lines 21-30).
In the context of a transaction requiring physical transfer of real gold in a secure storage facility,
the location of the deposit site where the gold is held and the transfer takes place would be
readily recognized as a pertinent information to record. If the location of the deposit site is
1 The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91,
198 USPQ 210, 214 (CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the prior art and
the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature"); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579,
35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of skill in the
art was best determined by the references of record); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, 59 USPQ2d 1795,
1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error 'where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.'").
2 On August 13, 2006, in response to an order from the board for the patent owner to identify the closest prior art
in the record the patent owner sent in a response specifically identifying a single reference, U.S. Patent No.
5,453,601, filed November 15, 1991.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007