Appeal 2006-2429
Application 09/999,580
1 Appellants invented a method for providing a financial evaluation of
2 at least one financial instrument or entity. (Specification 1).
3 Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reads as follows:
4 1. A method for providing a financial evaluation of at least one
5 financial instrument, the method comprising:
6
7 inputting counterparty credit quality data associated with a
8 transaction of the financial instrument between a party and a counterparty to
9 a data processing system;
10
11 inputting debt market data associated with the transaction to the
12 data processing system; and
13
14 determining, by the data processing system, a dynamic credit
15 limit for the counterparty based on at least one of the inputted counterparty
16 credit quality and the inputted debit market data, the dynamic credit limit
17 defined in terms of a credit exposure versus time.
18
19 The Examiner rejected claims 10–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second
20 paragraph) as being indefinite.
21 The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
22 being unpatentable over Basch in view of Tull.3
23 The Examiner rejected claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
24 unpatentable over Basch in view of Tull and Wallman.
25 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
26 appeal is:
2 Claims 24-30 have been withdrawn from consideration as being based
upon a non-elected invention. (Br. 3).
3 The Examiner notes (Answer 5) that because claims 10-23 are considered
to be indefinite, the Examiner is unable to provide art-based rejections for
these claims.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013