`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 16
`
`Exhibit 16
`
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent application of:
`
`Applicant(s):
`
`Jeffrey Bruce McGeorge
`
`Serial No:
`
`10/415,022
`
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`September 5, 2003
`TRADING SYSTEM
`
`Examiner:
`
`Ella Colbert
`
`Art Unit:
`
`3694
`
`Docket No.
`
`CULLPO177US
`
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2007
`
`MS RCE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Favorable reconsideration of the above-referenced application is respectfully
`
`requested in view of the following part(s) of this reply:
`
`Amendments to the Claims
`
`Remarks
`
`Enclosures:
`
`[
`[
`[
`
`l
`]
`]
`
`Credit Card Payment
`Petition for Extension of Time
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`In the event any fee or additional fee is due in connection with the filing of this
`
`paper, the Commissioner is authorized to charge those fees to our Deposit Account No.
`
`18-0988 (under the above Docket Number).
`
`In the event an extension of time is
`
`needed to make the filing of this paper timely and no separate petition is attached,
`
`please consider this a petition for the requisite extension and charge the fee to our
`
`Deposit Account No. 18-0988 (under the above Docket Number).
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`

`

`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;
`
`the network of computers receiving instructions from a user to specify
`
`stock market technical analysis criteria to be applied to the stock market data relating to
`
`at least one stock to arrive at at least one user-specified technical analysis indicator
`
`value which signals the occurrence of a change in stock value significant to the user
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`the network of computers applying the user-specified stock market
`
`technical analysis criteria to the real-time stock market data in real-time to arrive at at
`
`least one calculated technical analysis indicator value based on the real-time stock
`
`market data; and
`
`(d)
`
`the network of computers causing a real-time notification to be provided to
`
`the user via the a remote communications device upon the occurrence ofan-event th_e
`
`change in stock value significant to the user defined by comparing the at least one
`
`calculated technical analysis indicator value to the at least one user-specified technical
`
`analysis indicator value as real-time changes in the stock market data occur, arising
`
`steelemarket—data the real-time notification directed to a remote communications device
`
`
`
`of the user.
`
`2.
`
`(previously presented) 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 presented) A method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
`
`receiving step includes receiving instructions from the user to provide technical analysis
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`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 presented) 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.
`
`5-9.
`
`(cancelled)
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`Remarks
`
`The various parts of the Office Action (and other matters, if any) are discussed
`
`below under appropriate headings.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 us. C. § 112
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to amend the phrase "occurrence of an event" to
`
`read "occurrence of a change in stock value significant to the user". This should
`
`resolve any issue regarding any indefiniteness in claim 1.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 us. C. § 101
`
`Reconsideration of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested
`
`in view of the amendments made to claim 1.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that the claims
`
`are directed to a useful, concrete and tangible result.
`
`The Examiner contended that claim 1 "does not produce tangible results, but
`
`merely determinations. These determinations might remain entirely inside the mind of
`
`the person doing the determining. These results are not tangible and concrete, and
`
`thus not eligible subject matter, and thus are rejected."
`
`In response, the claims of the application have been amended to clarify the
`
`operation of the method of the invention in order to highlight further the "useful,
`
`concrete and tangible result" to which the claims are directed.
`
`The method of claim 1 does produce tangible results, in the form of a real-time
`notification which is fon/varded to the user via a remote communications device. The
`
`"determinations" to which the Examiner is referring are not determinations as such but
`
`are instead a comparison of the calculated technical analysis indicator values which are
`
`arrived at by application of the user-specified technical analysis criteria to the real-time
`
`stock market data which is received on the network of computers. Once the computer
`
`scanner identifies that the calculated technical analysis indicator values meet the user-
`
`specified technical analysis indicator values, a real-time notification issues and is sent
`to the user's remote communication device to advise the user of the match.
`
`80, the "determinations" referred to by the Examiner do not occur in the mind of
`
`a person doing the determining as there is no such person. The "determinations" are
`
`performed by the network of computers.
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`Claim 1 also provides the further action of causing a real-time notification to be
`
`provided to the user. The real-time notification is a real-world result, as the notification
`is forwarded to a remote communications device of the user.
`
`Therefore, in terms of the features of claim 1 that are directed to a useful,
`
`concrete and tangible result, the following further comments are provided:
`
`1.
`
`Useful - the method is useful as it produces and communicates a real-
`
`time technical analysis alert to a user to notify the user of the occurrence
`
`of a change in a stock which the user has requested that he be notified of
`
`allowing the user to take advantage of the change;
`
`2.
`
`Concrete - the method is substantially repeatable, producing a notification
`
`to a user whenever the at least one calculated technical analysis indicator
`
`value matches at least one user-specified technical analysis indicator
`
`value; and
`
`3.
`
`Tangible - the "real-world" result is the production and communication of
`
`the notification of the change in the stock to the user via the remote
`communications device of the user.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 us. C. § 102 and § 103
`
`The Examiner contends that the claims are anticipated by WO 00/11587 (Satow)
`
`or obvious in the light of Satow in view of US 6317728 (Kane).
`
`The Examiner's comments regarding claim 1 on page 5 of the Office Action have
`
`been carefully considered, but the features (b) and (c) of claim 1, which the Examiner
`
`contends are disclosed at particular portions of Satow, are clearly not disclosed at those
`
`portions.
`
`For instance, the Examiner contends that feature (b) of claim 1 is taught at page
`
`6, line 14 through page 7, line 11 and Figure 2 (212) of Satow. This portion of the
`
`Satow document discloses a system to match a user's buy and sell characteristics of a
`stock with the available characteristics of the stock in real time.
`It is well known in the
`
`art that buy and sell data is perhaps the simplest of all data available in relation to a
`
`stock and the data required or used in technical analysis, is more complex with more
`
`trading parameters of the stock utilised, typically including at least price and volume
`traded.
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Again, as pointed out in the response to the first Office Action, Satow does not
`
`teach technical analysis. Satow has not been found to include any disclosure at all of
`
`taking incoming stock market details, applying technical analysis criteria to those
`
`incoming details to produce a technical analysis indicator value, and then notifying the
`
`user when the calculated technical analysis indicator value matches a user specified
`
`technical analysis indicator value. The Satow system matches a user's desired stock
`
`price with stock once it reaches that price, purchases the stock and notifies the user
`
`that the stock has been purchased.
`
`The Satow system only matches real-time stock price (not volume of stock
`
`traded in a deal) with the user's desired stock price in order to gauge when to buy the
`
`stock. There is no technical analysis discussed in Satow.
`
`In contrast, the method of claim 1 enables a system where a user can provide
`
`complex parameters to a computer network which then takes incoming live trading data
`
`(e.g. price and volume), performs technical analysis on the incoming live trading data to
`
`establish an underlying value of stock, compares the underlying value of the stock to
`
`the use specified parameters, and then notifies the user when their parameters are met.
`
`The basic difference between Satow and the method of claim 1 is that Satow
`
`merely monitors stock price and the number of stocks available and matches those with
`
`the users requirements. The method of the present invention analyses the underlying
`
`value of the stock using technical analysis and then notifies the user in real time when
`
`the user technical analysis criteria are met.
`
`The Satow system and the method of claim 1 admittedly have similarities,
`
`namely both take instructions from a user, and compare the instructions to stock market
`
`data. The Satow system, however, actually conducts a transaction in relation to the
`
`share when the instructions match the data and then notifies the user, whereas the
`
`present invention receives the data, performs complex analysis on the data according
`
`to the user's instructions, and then simply notifies the user of any matches that occur.
`
`Similarly, the secondary reference, Kane, is used only to disclose a remote
`
`communications device of particular types and therefore does not anticipate nor render
`obvious the claimed method.
`
`As to obviousness, given the simplicity of the Satow system and the complexity
`
`of the present system in performing technical analysis and comparing to user specified
`
`parameters, as well as the lack of teaching of technical analysis being used in Satow, it
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`is submitted that Satow does not render the present invention obvious, whether in
`
`combination with Kane or per 39.
`
`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-R03.wpd
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`