Ex Parte Rutt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11923776 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID A. RUTT,
ROBERT J. SULLIVAN,
and
EDWIN MARCIAL
____________

Appeal 2011-001520
Application 11/923,776
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001520
Application 11/923,776

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 9 to 45 and 47 to 55. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A system for adjusting trade details and
initiating trading functions in an electronic trading
environment comprising:
at least one exchange server for providing
trading functions to one or more trading terminals;
and
at least one trading terminal comprising a user
interface in communication with the exchange
server, the user interface comprising an on-screen
adjustment mechanism configured to adjust one or
more trade details prior to executing a trading
function, wherein the adjustment mechanism
automatically appears when an on-screen cursor is
moved over any of said trade details.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 9 to 19, 26 to 32, 35, 37, 39, 40 to 42, 46 to 48, 50 to 52, and 54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hausman
(US2002/0178104 A1; pub. Nov. 28, 2002) and Sami Lais, Zoomin’
ahead, 34 Computerworld, 92 (Jun. 26, 2000) (hereinafter Lais).
2. Claims 20 to 22, 33, 38, 49, 53, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hausman, Lais, and Lutnick (US 2007/0271171 A1;
pub. Nov. 22, 2007).
Appeal 2011-001520
Application 11/923,776

3
3. Claims 23 to 25 and 43 to 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hausman, Lais, and Tyulyaev (US 2005/0256797 A1; pub. Nov. 17,
2005).

ISSUE
Does Lais disclose an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust one
or more trade details prior to executing a trading function?

ANALYSIS
Obviousness
In response to the rejection of the claims as unpatentable over
Hausman in view of Lais, the Appellants argue that Lais does not disclose an
adjustment mechanism configured to adjust one or more trade details.
Specifically, the Appellants argue at page 12:
Unlike the Claim 9 of the instant
application, however, Lais fails to disclose any sort
of adjustment mechanism that automatically
appears by moving an on-screen cursor over a
trade detail. Instead, Lais simply discloses
zooming in on an object which is already on the
screen. In other words, Lais does not disclose a
mechanism that automatically appears, it simply
enlarges an object that is already there. (see Lais
¶6 and ¶1 0 under 'Full Text').
Moreover, Lais fails to disclose any sort of
adjustment mechanism whatsoever. As noted
above, Lais simply enlarges folders which are
already displayed on the screen. Lais make no
reference to 'adjusting' any trade details (or
anything else). In fact, Lais characterizes its ZUI
Appeal 2011-001520
Application 11/923,776

4
simply as a way to "navigate through
information", as opposed to a way to adjust
information. (see Lais ¶7 under 'Full Text').
We agree and find that Lais does not disclose the claimed adjustment
mechanism configured to adjust one or more trade details. Therefore, we
will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 9 and claims 10 to 19
and 26 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 27 and claims 28 to 32, 35, 37, and 39 dependent thereon
because claim 27 claims an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust one
or more trade details.
We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 40 and
claims 41, 42, 46 to 48, 50 to 52 and 54 dependent thereon because we find
that Lais does not disclose a trading terminal that automatically generates a
transaction window for use in adjusting one or more trade details.
We will likewise not sustain the remaining rejections because in each
of these rejections the Examiner relied on Lais for disclosing an adjustment
mechanism or a trading terminal that automatically generates a transaction
window for use in adjusting one or more trade details.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh