Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
(Litton, p. 3).
5. Fletcher teaches a pulldown menu for selecting a type of loan analysis
(Fletcher, Fig. 14).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”)
ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dhar in view of Myers and further in view of Litton.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013