Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
2. Claims 8, 12, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada.
3. Claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hawkins and Harada.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that (1) Wagner fails to disclose an equities trading
exchange or an affiliate for executing transactions on a trading exchange (Br. 16),
(2) “Hawkins’ transaction orders may very well be executed manually as opposed
to electronically, since Hawkins apparently makes no mention of electronic
execution” (Br. 17), and (3) the combination of Wagner and Hawkins fails to teach
that the “executing affiliate electronically transmits proceeds from said sale of said
equity to said global hub” (Br. 17). The Examiner held that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to modify the invention of Wagner et al.
based on the teachings of Hawkins et al.” in order “to efficiently and effectively
match an investor’s equity order with an executing broker’s match confirmation”
while being compatible with existing financial network standards (Answer 8).
The issues before us are:
1) Whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wagner and Hawkins.
rejections moot. As such, the rejections of these claims are not before us, and the
Examiner should enter the March 28, 2006, Amendment canceling claims 31 and
34-43.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013