Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). However, “the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter
of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 26, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagner and Hawkins
Appellants argue claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13 as a first group (Br. 16). We
consider claim 3 as the representative claim from this group, and claims 4, 6, 7, 11,
and 13 thus stand or fall with claim 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants contend that the teachings of Wagner are irrelevant to claim 3
because Wagner does not teach an equities trading exchange or an affiliate for
executing transactions on a trading exchange (Br. 16). Although we agree that
Wagner does not teach an equities trading exchange or an affiliate for executing
transactions on the exchange, we find Appellants’ conclusion of irrelevance
unfounded. Wagner teaches a system and method for providing access to a
plurality of national and international payment networks (Finding of Fact 10).
These networks, such as the SWIFT network, are commonly used in the financial
industry to settle equity transactions (Finding of Fact 8 and 9). As such, Wagner is
relevant to the claimed invention for its teachings regarding a method and system
for conducting international settlement transactions.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013