Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
the amount in the loan accrual component as a function of the rate of inflation.” While
the bank loans described at pages 67 and 68 of Mukherjee are not described as having
principal and accrual (i.e., interest) components, we hereby take official notice that it
was common practice to divide a loan into a principal component and at least one
accrual component representing the fixed interest component, which is enough to
satisfy claim 4. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420-21 (CCPA
1970) (PTO tribunals, where it is found necessary, may take notice of facts beyond the
record which, while not generally notorious, are capable of such instant and
unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute). In any event, appellant does not
deny that it was common practice to divide a loan into a principal component and at
least one accrual (i.e., interest) component. Instead, appellant gives two reasons why
Mukherjee’s loans did not have an accrual component which is a function of the rate of
inflation, as required by claim 5. Brief at 18. The first reason, which is that the loan
surcharges are not “directly related to the rate of inflation,” fails for the reasons already
addressed. The second reason is that the surcharges were not a part of the loan
account because they were “payable immediately by borrowers as additional interest;
the outstanding debt was not, however, written up.” Mukherjee at 68, 2d para. This
argument is unconvincing because the phrase “not . . . written up” does not mean that
the bank failed to keep a record of the loan surcharges; we understand it to mean that
the initial loan agreement was not altered, replaced, or supplemented by another written
loan agreement. Moreover, we hereby take official notice under Ahlert that it was
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007