Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
transmitting said transaction order electronically to a second
computerized system, said second computerized system being
connected to a plurality stock exchanges in a plurality of countries;
and
receiving from said second computerized system execution
details regarding the purchase of said security or commodity in
response to said transaction order, said purchase of said security or
commodity being made by a stock exchange member connected to
said second computerized system,
wherein said first computerized system maintains a customer
account in a first currency and said security or commodity trades on a
stock exchange in a second currency, and
wherein said second computerized system converts said first
currency to said second currency to purchase said security or
commodity.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Sibley, Jr. US 4,677,552 Jun. 30, 1987
Wagner US 5,424,938 Jun. 13, 1995
Hawkins US 6,029,146 Feb. 22, 2000
Harada US 2003/0208440 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 3, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 26, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wagner and Hawkins.1
1 Although Claims 31, 34, and 38-41 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sibley, Jr, claims 35, 36, and 37 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hawkins, and claims 42 and 43 were rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wagner and Hawkins, Appellants’
amendment canceling claims 31 and 34-43 filed on March 28, 2006, renders these
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013