Appeal 2007-0772
Application 09/788,132
Appellants argue these claims as a group, and we look to representative
claim 4. Appellants repeat the arguments made against the previous rejection,
which are equally unpersuasive here. Moreover, Fletcher teaches a pulldown menu
for selecting a type of loan analysis (Finding of Fact 5). 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 the automated loss mitigation loan workout
system, as disclosed by Dhar, Myers and Litton, in
combination, to provide a menu of predefined analysis
types for selection among, as disclosed by Fletcher, to
utilize a common and standard software feature to create
an easier to utilize graphic user interface.
(Answer 10).
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013