`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 15
`
`Exhibit 15
`
`
`

`

`Amendments to the Specification
`
`Please insert after the last line on page 4 of the replacement specification the following
`
`paragraph:
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates an application of the computer system.
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`

`Amendments to the Claims
`
`1.
`
`(currently amended) A method of informing users of stock market events
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`receiving real-time stock market data on a network of computers; L]
`
`receiving instructions from a user to specify mathematical-form m
`
`market technical analysis criteria to be applied to the stock market data and to forward
`
`to the user notification of the occurrence of an event defined by the user-specified
`
`mathematical-formulae stock market technical analysis criteria as real-time changes in
`
`the stock market data via a remote communications device; L]
`
`(c)
`
`applying the user-specified stock market technical analysis criteria
`
`mathematical-formufie to the stock market data in real-time; L] and
`
`(d)
`
`causing a real-time notification to be provided to the user via the remote
`
`communications device upon the occurrence of an event arising from the application of
`
`the user-specified mathematical-formulae stock market technical analysis criteria to the
`
`stock market data.
`
`2.
`
`(previously amended) A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
`
`receiving step includes receiving instructions from the user to provide technical analysis
`
`criteria for specific stocks, and providing the requested technical analysis criteria for the
`
`specific stocks via the remote communications device.
`
`3.
`
`(previously amended) A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
`
`receiving step includes receiving instructions from the user to provide technical analysis
`
`criteria of overall stock market trends, and providing the requested technical analysis
`
`criteria of the overall stock market trends via the remote communications device.
`
`4.
`
`(previously amended) A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the remote
`
`communications device comprises a users fixed or mobile telephone, a personal
`
`computing device, a facsimile or pager of the user.
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`

`5-9.
`
`(cancelled)
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`

`Amendments to the Drawings
`
`The attached replacement sheet(s) of drawings replace(s) the sheets with the
`
`corresponding figures. The replacement sheets include the following changes:
`
`A new FIG. 3 is being added.
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`

`Remarks
`
`The various parts of the Office Action (and other matters, if any) are discussed
`
`below under appropriate headings.
`
`Specification
`
`The specification has been objected to for not being in proper format and in
`
`agreement with the claims.
`
`In connection therewith, the Examiner has quoted what
`
`appear to be passages from MPEP § 608.01(a), although reference is made to MPEP §
`
`608.01(b) which discusses guidelines for the abstract of the disclosure. No comment is
`
`provided as to how the specification is in an improperformat or not in agreement with
`
`the claims. Therefore, clarification of what is considered to be in an improper format or
`
`not in agreement with the claims is requested.
`
`Regarding the format of the specification, it is noted that the headings set forth in
`
`the MPEP are suggested headings and not mandatory. The replacement specification
`
`that has been provided is believed to contain appropriate headings. Also, an abstract
`
`has been provided in accordance with MPEP § 608.01(b).
`
`Claim Objections
`
`The Examiner has suggested punctuation changes in claim 1, and these have
`been adopted.
`
`The Examiner also suggested a grammatical change in claim 1, but such change
`is now moot since claim 1 no longer refers to "mathematical formulae".
`
`In view of the foregoing, withdrawal of the claim objection is respectfully
`requested.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1St Paragraph
`
`Claims 1-4 have been rejected for failing to comply with the enablement
`
`requirement. According to the Examiner the claims contain subject matter which was
`
`not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to
`make and/or use the invention.
`
`The methodology which the system puts into effect is discussed in the
`specification, for example paragraph [0035]1 which discusses one of the purposes of
`
`1 The bracketed paragraph numbers correspond to those in the published U.S. application.
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`the drone computer (part of the hardware in the system) is to "accept, process and
`
`return static stock market data which a user has requested from the service" and the
`
`second purpose at paragraph [0036] is "to repetitively calculate the user's watch data",
`
`examples of which are discussed in paragraph [0037].
`
`The watch data can consist of: a simple, price/volume or price plus
`volume watch or a technical analysis reguest, e.g. trend line drawing,
`moving average alerts, as well as other well documented technical
`analysis systems. (emphasis added)
`
`Regarding the Examiner's comment that the drawings do not contain a flowchart
`
`of the methodology, a new FIG. 3 is being added. As depicted in FIG. 3, technical
`
`analysis criteria is specified by a user [0035] and stock market data is received by the
`
`system [0013]. The system then applies the specified criteria to the stock market data
`
`[0036] and if the criteria is satisfied a notification is issued to the user [0010].
`
`In view of the foregoing, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §
`
`112, first paragraph, is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 2"” Paragraph
`
`Claim 1 was considered indefinite because "occurrence of an event" and
`
`"specified mathematical formulae" are allegedly vague. The Examiner further noted the
`
`specification refers to "technical analysis information", "technical analysis systems" and
`
`"technical analysis indicators". Although issue is taken with the Examiner's contentions,
`
`claim 1 has been amended to refer to "technical analysis criteria" which is clearly
`
`mentioned in the specification. Moreover, the "occurrence of an event" should be
`
`considered in context, such being the "occurrence of an event arising from the
`
`application of the user-specified technical analysis criteria to the stock market data."
`
`Such an event could be, for example, when a moving average satisfies a specified
`criteria.
`
`In the below discussed rejection under 35 USC § 101, the Examiner commented
`
`that it is not understood what is meant by "technical analysis criteria".
`
`It is respectfully
`
`submitted that one of ordinary skill in the relevant arts would understand what is meant
`
`by such term. The Examiner is invited to conduct an Internet search which reveal
`
`numerous uses of such terminology. For example,
`
`The Technical Analysis version allows you to plot technical indicators on
`the charts (see FAQ's/Screenshots for examples). You can also search
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`for stocks that meet technical analysis criteria, such as MACD crossing
`from negative to positive within the last week.
`
`found at http://www.willstein.com/stockwatchtower/TechnicalAnalysis.htm|.
`
`Once an Industry Sector has been selected as likely to benefit from the
`current economic environment or meets specific technical analysis
`criteria, it is necessary to find the healthiest, lowest risk companies in that
`sector. Fundamental software packages will do this task as will the
`Advanced Finder on the ninemsn website, both at a cost.
`
`found at http://www.asx.com.au/resources/newsletters/investor_update/20050510-
`
`fundamentalanalysis.htm.
`
`In view of the foregoing, withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §
`
`112, second paragraph, is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`Claims 1-4 have been rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`This rejection should be withdrawn because the claims clearly provide a useful,
`
`concrete and tangible result. For instance, the method of claim 1 causes a real-time
`
`notification to be provided to the user via a remote communications device. The alert
`
`message informs the user of the occurrence of a predetermined event of which the user
`
`has asked to be informed. This is a tangible result and one that is repeatable.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and § 103
`
`The claims have been rejected as being anticipated by or unpatentable over WO
`
`00/11587 (Satow) and/or US 6,317,728 (Kane). This rejection should be withdrawn for
`
`at least the following reasons.
`
`Satow discloses a system adapted to conduct real-time share transactions,
`
`namely buying and selling shares. For example, the prior art system as discussed on
`
`page 8, line 8 to page 9, line 9 teaches a system that matches an order for shares with
`
`an offer to sell shares. There, however, is no application of technical analysis criteria
`
`in the Satow system; it merely matches the characteristics of an order (that is security
`
`type, price and number desired) with the characteristics of an offer to sell (security type,
`
`price and numberfor sale). This is not technical analysis of the stock market data,
`
`merely a real-time matching service.
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`Thus, the Satow system has a very different premise and lacks any disclosure or
`
`suggestion of comparing stock market data to user-defined technical analysis criteria in
`
`order to determine when an event occurs and then alerting a user of the occurrence of
`the event.
`
`Kane was applied as a secondary reference for its disclosure relating to remote
`communications. Kane does not overcome the fundamental deficiencies of Satow as a
`
`teaching reference vis-a-vis the subject matter of the claims.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing, request is made for timely issuance of a notice of
`allowance.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`
`/Don W. Bulson/
`
`By
`
`Don W. Bulson, Reg. No. 28,192
`
`1621 Euclid Avenue
`
`Nineteenth Floor
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44115
`(216) 621-1113
`
`M:\C\CULL\P\PO177\PO177US-R02.wpd
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`