Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (“[T]he analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”)
In addition, the Examiner found that it would have been obvious to automate
the known processes for loan workout decisions disclosed in Myers, relying first
on the suggestions of the references themselves and second on In re Venner, 120
USPQ 192 (Answer 8-9). With respect to the references and in response to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner stated:
As Dahr states “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, consumers shop for financial services over
the lnternet without the aid of an agent . . . A growing
number of online companies also provide loan services;
however, these online companies currently fall short of
fully automating the loan process.” (see Dhar, p. 1, para.
4 - 5).
And Litton states “Unfortunately, while the new
technology has started to appear to help servicers in
delinquency management and loss mitigation, it has been
slow to develop. Although sophisticated technology has
quickly taken hold in the loan origination side of the
business, the sophisticated technology required to make
default decisions has not effectively been packaged and
put to use in most servicing operations today. . .What is
needed to adequately service a mortgage from a loss
perspective is an automated system. . . .” (see Litton).
(Answer 16-17; see also the Final Rejection, pp. 11-14 for similar statements).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013