Appeal 2006-2429
Application 09/999,580
1 Basch does not describe debt market data, or inputting to the data processing
2 system debt market data associated with a transaction of a financial
3 instrument. Thus, the issue becomes whether Tull makes up for the
4 deficiencies of Basch. From fact 11 we find that in Tull, the reference
5 describes determining a price for a basket of shares which is packaged as a
6 debt instrument to reflect the current aggregate value of the shares. From
7 fact 10 we find that in Tull, the system develops and administers a financial
8 debt instrument traded as a listed security to investors desiring to track the
9 performance of a domestic or foreign capital market.
10 While both Basch and Tull may have some bearing on risk evaluation and
11 minimization as suggested by the Examiner, neither even hints that how it
12 treats risk evaluation and minimization has any bearing on the other, because
13 the risks taught by each are qualitatively different. Because Tull is creating
14 debt instruments formed from a basket of shares to track the performance of
15 a capital market, and is not inputting the debt instrument as part of a process
16 of determining a dynamic credit score, we find no suggestion to combine the
17 teachings and suggestions of Basch and Tull, as advanced by the Examiner,
18 except from using Appellants' invention as a template through a hindsight
19 reconstruction of Appellants' claims. It follows that we cannot sustain the
20 rejection of claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
21 § 103(a).
22 We turn next to the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
23 as being unpatentable over Basch in view of Tull and Wallman. Although
24 we agree with the Examiner that Wallman would have suggested hedging
25 excess risk (see facts 19-22), we agree with Appellants (Br. 20-22) that
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013