Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
the equity. As such, the combination of Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada renders
obvious the limitations of claim 8.
Appellants argue claim 30 separately. More specifically, Appellants contend
that (1) Hawkins fails to disclose a second computerized system that “converts said
first currency to said second currency to purchase said security or commodity”
(Br. 19), and (2) “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would find no suggestion,
motivation or reasonable expectation of success for a combination that satisfies the
claim limitations” because “Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada are disparate systems
serving disparate purposes” (Br. 20). We disagree.
We find Appellants’ contention that the combination fails to disclose a
second computerized system that converts currency unpersuasive for the at least
those reasons presented, supra, with regard to claim 26. Furthermore, we find
Appellants’ conculsory statement that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Wagner, Hawkins, and
Harada because they are disparate systems serving disparate purposes
unpersuasive. Although Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada may each provide
solutions to differing problems, they all relate to the processing of financial
transactions using, for example, SWIFT messages. Furthermore, there is no
evidence, in the references themselves or provided by Appellants, to suggest that
the systems of Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada are incapable of being combined.
To the contrary, they each teach systems which are configured to transmit SWIFT
messages. Accordingly, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the systems of Wagner, Hawkins, and Harada. As such, we
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013