Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
on the exchange.” Nowhere in the claimed invention is there any requirement that
the order be executed electronically. To the contrary, the claim requires only that
the transaction order be received electronically and then executed. Hawkins
teaches an executing broker 101 in another country which electronically receives a
transaction order from the originating broker 100 via host 102 and executes the
order (Finding of Fact 14). Even if, arguendo, one were to interpret claim 8 to
require that the transaction also be executed electronically, the regional broker 101
of Hawkins still satisfies the limitations of claim 8 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). Accordingly, Hawkins teaches a “computerized executing
affiliate” as claimed (i.e., it is suitable for electronically executing the
transactions).
Appellants further contend that the combination of Wagner, Hawkins, and
Harada fails to disclose that the introducing affiliate electronically transmits
currency for the purchase of the equity to the global hub. We find this contention
unfounded because Hawkins specifically teaches that the originating broker (i.e.,
the initiating affiliate) may directly enter settlement data on the SWIFT orders
(Finding of Fact 16). This settlement data, in the case of purchase transactions,
effectively initiates the transfer of funds from the originating broker 100 to the host
102 or at least would have suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art that the
introducing affiliate could electronically transmit the currency for the purchase of
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013