Appeal 2007-0394
Application 09/769,036
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 as being unpatentable over Wagner,
Hawkins, and Harada.
Rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hawkins and Harada.
Appellants argue claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 as a group (Br. 20). We consider
claim 21 as the representative claim from this group, and claims 22, 24, and 25
stand or fall with claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
Appellants contend that the combination of Hawkins and Harada “fails to
teach or suggest electronically transmitting proceeds via the global hub that also
carries the transaction order information” (Br. 20). More specifically, Appellants
contend that the SWIFT messages of Hawkins are simply order confirmation
messages and do not themselves accomplish a transfer of funds, but rather the
funds transfer is performed separately by the clearing agent (Br. 20). We disagree.
As discussed, supra, Hawkins discloses that the executing broker (1) may
directly enter settlement data in the confirmation message, and (2) may also be a
clearing agent (Finding of Fact 16 & 20). Furthermore, Hawkins discloses that the
SWIFT messages are transmitted to the host or hub 102, which also receives the
transaction order information (Finding of Fact 14). Therefore, the SWIFT
messages of Hawkins satisfy the limitations of claim 21. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hawkins and Harada.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013