Appeal 2006-2429
Application 09/999,580
1 Tull US 5,946,667 Aug. 31, 1999
2 Basch US 6,119,103 Sep. 12, 2000
3 Wallman US 6,360,210 B1 Mar. 19, 2002
4
5 With regard to the rejection of claims 10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
6 (second paragraph) the Examiner contends that it is unclear what is meant by
7 the term "credit cost C," how the term is measured, and how "maximum risk
8 exposure (M)" is measured. Appellants contend (Br. 10-12 and Reply Br.
9 3-5) that the ordinary meaning of "credit cost C" is emphasized in
10 Appellants' Specification; that the Specification provides examples of how
11 to derive a "credit cost C," and that "maximum risk exposure M" could be
12 calculated based upon a number of criteria described in the Specification.
13 With regard to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
14 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basch in view of Tull, the Examiner
15 contends that Basch does not explicitly teach the step of inputting debt
16 market data associated with a transaction to a data processing system. To
17 overcome this deficiency of Basch, the Examiner turns to Tull for a teaching
18 of inputting debt market data associated with a transaction to a data
19 processing system. (Answer 4). The Examiner asserts that because Tull and
20 Basch are concerned with the problem of evaluating risk and minimizing
21 risk, that it would have been obvious "to include the disclosure of Tull to the
22 invention of Basch." Appellants contend that Basch fails to disclose
23 "inputting debt market data associated with the transaction to the data
24 processing system," and that Tull does not disclose inputting debt market
25 data associated with a transaction of the financial instrument. (Br. 14).
26 Appellants further contend that "[t]he Examiner appears to have confused
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013