Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
transaction orders be electronically executed, the regional broker 101 of Hawkins
still satisfies the limitations of claim 3 in as much as Hawkins discloses that the
executing broker supervisor can authorize the transmittal of orders and executions
from the broker workstations, i.e., electronic execution (Finding of Fact 19). As
such, we find Appellants contention unpersuasive because (1) claim 3 recites only
“electronically receiving said transaction order”, not electronically executing it,
and (2) Hawkins teaches a method and apparatus for trading securities
electronically (Finding of Fact 14 and 19).
Finally, Appellants contend that the combination of Wagner and Hawkins
fails to disclose the “executing affiliate electronically transmits proceeds from said
sale of said equity to said global hub” because the MT518 messages of Hawkins
are simply order confirmation messages which do not themselves accomplish a
transfer of funds, but rather it is the clearing agent that performs the funds transfer
(Br. 17). We disagree.
First, Hawkins teaches that the executing broker can directly enter settlement
data on the SWIFT confirmation messages (Finding of Fact 16). As such, the
SWIFT messages of Hawkins are not simply order confirmation messages, which
do not themselves accomplish a transfer of funds. As customarily understood in
the financial arts, electronic transmittal of funds or proceeds refers to any one of a
number of known methods of transferring funds without the exchange of cash or
check (Finding of Fact 1). Therefore, settlement data included in the SWIFT
confirmation messages of Hawkins effectively initiates the electronic transmittal of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013