Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
(Br. 9).
The Examiner relies upon Myers for: 1) inputs from and outputs to, a
financially troubled borrower, including inputs and outputs relating to a proposed
loan workout; 2) loan workout decision analysis wherein the analysis 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 approve the proposed loan
workout; and 3) approval of the proposed loan workout (Answer 7). The Examiner
further relies on Litton 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 approve the proposed loss mitigation workout; and 3) approval of the proposed
loss mitigation workout (Answer 7-8). We find no error in the Examiner’s
characterization of the references and what they teach (Findings of Fact 2-3).
Appellants argue that the cited references do not suggest and, if anything
teach away from, the claimed invention (Br. 13-15). However, the teaching away
argument is nothing more than a conclusory statement without any citation to any
portion of the references for a specific teaching away. To the extent the Appellants
argue in their pre-KSR Brief that there is no explicit teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine Bahr, Myers, and Litton, that argument is foreclosed by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013