Appeal No. 2001-1000
Application No. 08/835,404
transmitted in response including a “rejected” status of the credit application. (Jones at
column 5.) The examiner relies on the teaching of Jones that a system for the real time
automatic determination of the approval status of a loan borrower’s application may be
used for a personal revolving debt or a general loan to suggest that “artisans would
determine the utility of the system for credit card transactions as well as other credit-
related authorizations.” (See answer at page 3.) Appellant argues that an automated
credit application approval system does not teach or suggest using the system for credit
card transactions. (See brief at page 11.) Additionally, appellant argues that the
examiner’s characterization of revolving debt as equated to lines of credit which include
credit cards (answer at page 3) is unreasonable. (See brief at pages 11-12.) Appellant
supplies a copy of a newsletter from the financial services industry “The Green Sheet.”
(See appendix B to the brief.) While we do not find the content of this article in this
publication alone to be persuasive, we do not find that the examiner has supported the
conclusion of obviousness with a convincing line of reasoning why the processing of a
credit application would have fairly suggested the extension of the system of Jones to
credit card transactions beyond the fact that the word “credit” is in each transaction.
While we find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to implement the systems of Jones and PR Newswire to apply
for a credit card or other credit application desiring a prompt determination and
issuance, we do not find any evidence or a convincing line of reasoning as to why it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007