Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
Moreover, each of the elements of Dhar, Myers, and Litton combined by the
Examiner performs the same function when combined as it does in the prior art.
Thus, such a combination would have yielded predictable results. See Sakraida v.
Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). Therefore, the
claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct.
at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. In addition, neither Appellants’ Specification nor
Appellants’ arguments present convincing evidence that automating the known
processes for loan workout decisions disclosed in Myers as suggested by the
Examiner is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Under those circumstances and in light of the explicit teachings cited by the
Examiner, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have
modified Dhar by incorporating the established loan
workout analysis, as disclosed by Myers, and the loss
mitigation analysis, as disclosed by Litton, into the
automated loan decision analysis software and workflow
(decision) engine, as disclosed by Dhar, to provide a
faster and automated system through which to run loss
mitigation workouts, and, as disclosed by Dhar, [to]
produce an automatic decision.
(Answer 8).
B. Rejection of claims 4, 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dhar in view of Myers, Litton, and Fletcher.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013