Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
proceeds or at least would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art
that the executing broker could initiate the transmittal.
Second, even if arguendo, the funds transfer is performed by the clearing
agent, as suggested by Appellants, Hawkins teaches that the executing
broker/affiliate is also the clearing agent (Finding of Fact 20). As such, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, and 13 as unpatentable over
Wagner and Hawkins.
Appellants argue claims 26 and 29 as a second group (Br. 17). We consider
claim 26 as the representative claim from this group, and claim 29 thus stands or
falls with claim 26. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants contend that the combination of Wagner and Hawkins fails to
teach or suggest “said second computerized system converts said first currency to
said second currency to purchase said security or commodity,” (Br. 17-18) where
the second computerized system is connected to a plurality of exchanges in a
plurality of countries and the purchase is made by a stock exchange member
connected to the second computerized system (Br. 18). The Examiner found that
Hawkins discloses a second computerized system that converts a first currency to a
second currency to purchase a security or commodity in as much as Hawkins
discloses executing a trade in a different currency from the original initiating
broker country currency (Answer 8).
Appellants’ argument does not appear to be based on the assertion that the
system of Hawkins fails to include a conversion of currencies, but rather that
Hawkins and Wagner (1) fail to actually perform a conversion of the electronic
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013