Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
Appellants argue claims 1, 6, and 11, the three independent claims, as a
group. They do not argue claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 10 separately, so all of the claims
in this group stand or fall with representative claim 1.
There is no dispute that Dhar discloses all of the elements of claim 1, but
for:
[1)] inputs from and outputs to, a financially troubled borrower, including
inputs and outputs relating to a proposed loss mitigation workout;
[2)] automatic loan workout decision analysis software wherein the analysis
software analyzes information relating to a preexisting loan whose terms are
not being met by the financially troubled borrower and other information
relating to why the troubled borrower is financially troubled to determine
whether to automatically approve the proposed loss mitigation loan workout;
and
[3)] automatic approval of the proposed loss mitigation loan workout.
(Answer 6-7).
Appellants instead argue that Myers and Litton, which the Examiner relies
on to supply the above limitations (Answer 7-8), do not cure the deficiencies of
Dahr noted by the Examiner (Br. 6). In particular, Appellants argue that:
Dhar, Myers, and Litton, take [sic, taken] separately or in
combination, do not teach and do not suggest analysis
software which analyzes both "information relating to a
preexisting loan whose terms are not being met by the
financially troubled borrower and other information
relating to why the troubled borrower is financially
troubled to determine whether to automatically approve
the proposed loss mitigation loan workout," as claimed
by claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013