Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
first computer system, does not perform the conversion (there would be no need
for a conversion rate if the originating broker handled the conversion because the
transaction would be handled in the executing country’s currency). Therefore,
since the term “second computerized system” may include any entity other than the
originating broker (i.e., the first computer system), the inclusion of a conversion
rate outside of the first computer system is sufficient to satisfy, or at least render
obvious, the limitations of claims 26. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 26 and 29 as unpatentable over the combination of Wagner and Hawkins.
Rejection of claims 8, 12, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada
Appellants argue claims 8 and 12 as a group (Br. 16). We consider claim 8
as the representative claim from this group, and claim 12 stands or falls with
claim 8. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants contend that the combination of Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada
fails to teach or suggest (1) an executing affiliate that electronically executes a
transaction order on the exchange” or (2) that the “introducing affiliate
electronically transmits currency for said purchase of said equity to said global
hub” (Br. 19). We disagree.
Claim 8 recites, by virtue of its dependency on independent claim 6, a
computerized system for trading securities and commodities that includes, inter
alia, “a computerized executing affiliate in a second country suitable for
electronically receiving said transaction order and executing said transaction order
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013