Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting (1) claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 11 as unpatentable over Dhar in view
of Myers and further in view of Litton; (2) claims 4, 9, 12, and 13 as unpatentable
over Dhar in view of Myers, Litton, and Fletcher. The issue turns on whether the
cited references are properly combined to show the automation of known processes
to make automatic loan workout decisions.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we make
reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. Dahr states that
Technology has changed the landscape of the financial services industry
such that agents play an increasingly shrinking role in marketing the
financial products to consumers. As the Internet has grown in popularity,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013