Appeal Number: 2006-2286
Application Number: 09/165,352
Claims 77 through 87 and 93 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Norris and Mortgage Marketplace.
As to independent claims 77, 81 and 93, the appellants argue that there is no
motivation to combine interest rate locks with Norris, because Norris describes
immediate approval of mortgages, which inherently would not require any locks
(Br. P. 8), and because the terms and conditions of the loan are established only
after the approval of the loan (Br. p. 9-10), and argue that Norris does not teach
using risk in determining the terms of the loan, but only in approving the loan (Br.
Pp. 12-13) and that Norris fails to describe automatic notification (Br. P. 14).
The examiner responds that as to motivation, Norris teaches that a loan may
be delayed a day, which would thus require locks (Answer p. 4), and as to use of
risk, Norris describes its use in pricing at col. 8 lines 29-47 and as to automated
notification, Norris describes this col. 7 lines 55-65 and col. 8 lines 23-28 (Answer,
p. 6).
We first note that regarding the motivation, the examiner is correct in that
Norris at col. 8, line 23 to 28, states
Not every loan decision will be clear. In the event the analysis by
neural network 17 is inconclusive, the borrower will be called back by
communications processor 30 and asked for an additional business
day to qualify the loan application and, if the request if granted, the
time for the return call will be arranged.
Thus, in such a case motivation to lock in interest rates as described in
Mortgage Marketplace would be present. Therefore, we find the appellant's
arguments to be unpersuasive.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007