Appeal Number: 2006-2286
Application Number: 09/165,352
the check is not intended for deposit into an account, late charges that
could apply, the finance charge, the annual percentage rate, the total
cost of all the payments, and the total amount financed.
We find no teaching or suggestion of using risk to price the loan in this
portion. Indeed all references to risk in Norris refer to approving predefined terms
rather than computing terms of the loan, as has been argued by the appellants.
Therefore, we find the appellants’ arguments to be persuasive that the applied
references fail to describe all the elements in the independent claims, and by
inference, all dependent claims as well, and the examiner has not made a prima
facie case for unpatentability.
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 77 through
87 and 93 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Norris and Mortgage
Marketplace.
New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new grounds of
rejection:
Independent claims 77, 81 and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable as obvious over Norris and Rothenberg.
In contrast with the lack of Norris describing use of risk in pricing loans, we
note that Rothenberg, provided such a teaching that “[t]here are now lenders who
again do true risk-based lending, and if your history is superb, they may lend at a
lower rate.” Rothenberg also teaches that a lock may be placed on the rate as “you
can hold a rate without extra cost for 60 days,” and that such loans may be
provided automatically on line “if you’d like to try getting your loan online.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007