Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
funds into the second currency so that the funds are then actually denominated in
the second currency, and (2) fail to teach that it is the “second computerized
system” which converts the currencies. We disagree.
The Appellants answer the first argument with the Examiner’s response to a
different claim that “currency trading inherently includes translation from one
currency into another currency on the settlement date.” (Br. 18). This is the
apparent reason for the Appellants then raising the second argument.
The ordinary and customary meaning of the term computer or computerized
system is a group of device or artificial object or an organization forming a
network esp. for distributing something or serving a common purpose (Finding of
Fact 5). The Specification does not define what constitutes a “computerized
system” nor does it utilize the term contrary to its customary meaning (Finding of
Fact 6). As such, giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation as it would
be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, we find the claimed
computerized system to include any combination of hardware or software
networked together to serve a common purpose.
The combination of Wagner and Hawkins discloses a first computer system,
i.e., the originating broker 100, and a second computerized system, i.e., the
combination of the host 102 and the regional broker 101, wherein equity buy
and/or sell transactions are settled in different currencies. Although, the
combination of Wagner and Hawkins does not explicitly specify where/who in the
system performs the conversion of currencies, the fact that a conversion rate is
included in the settlement instructions teaches that the originating broker, i.e., the
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013