Ex Parte Rutt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201311923776 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation