Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
with no minimum payment of principle [sic] required. In these plans, the principle is
usually due in five to ten years.” Weiner at 2d page, under the heading “Scheduling
repayment.” We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious for a bank to
combine Weiner’s teaching of permitting a balloon repayment of principal with
Mukherjee’s teaching of indexing the principal loan component to inflation in order to
accommodate the needs or preferences of borrowers. Final Action at 20-21, ¶ 33.
Appellant’s complaint that Weiner is not concerned with indexed loans, Brief at 24, is
unconvincing because
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the combined teachings of a plurality of references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). We are therefore affirming the
rejection of claim 25.
The rejection of claims 26-28, which are dependent on claim 25, rejected over
the same prior art as claim 25, and not separately argued, is also affirmed.
K. Summary
Both of the rejections have been affirmed with respect to all of the rejected
claims.
38
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007