Appeal 2006-3430
Application 10/178,439
2. We find that the existence of both techniques of rendering source code
into executable code in the prior art meets the claim’s limitation,
which chooses one of those techniques (compiling), and indicates it is
obvious over the admitted prior art.
3. Concerning other arguments concerning sub-modules in these claims,
we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning on page 17 of the Answer, and
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Group III: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 5, 10, 15-16, 24
and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Morales in view of
Kogan.
1. Claim 5 et al add limitations to the independent claims concerning
business rules in which customer orders for transacting a financial
instrument are selected from the group consisting of a stock, a bond, a
mutual fund and an option. Kogan discloses a “Rule Compliance
System and a Rule Definition Language” specifically for “rules
regarding securities trading and other applications.” It is addressed to
a portfolio manager for a large institutional investor. (Kogan, col. 1, ll.
30 ff).
2. As both references are addressed to business rules for transactions, as
instituted in a computer system, we do not find persuasive Appellants’
arguments that they are not logically connected. Kogan clearly
teaches the application of his rule system on a computer, as is the
system of Morales.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013