10013019 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2008)

Ex Parte Danpour

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 23, 2008

10013019 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JOHN DANPOUR ____________________ Appeal 2008-1470 Application 10/013,019 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Decided: June 23, 2008 ____________________ Before: ANTON W. FETTING, DAVID B. WALKER, and STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from the 2 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2002) of twice-rejected claims 1-12 as 3 being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. Patent 5,995,947) in view of Levine 4 (U.S. Patent 6,233,566). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C § 6(b) (2002).5 Appeal 2008-1470 Application 10/013,019 2 We REVERSE. 1 Independent claim 1 recites a direct online mortgage auction network 2 including a mortgage auction network Web site “for providing access to a 3 preset pool of funds in a secondary mortgage market” and a plurality of 4 borrower nodes. The borrower nodes are configured to directly access the 5 mortgage auction network Web site so as to allow users “to enter a plurality 6 of bids for a mortgage to be awarded from said preset pool of funds in the 7 secondary market.” Once a predetermined time limit is met, the bids are 8 compared to one another and “at least one or more of said bids submitted 9 from said borrower nodes, qualifies for a portion of the preset pool of funds 10 in the secondary mortgage market.” Independent claim 9 recites a method 11 for operating a direct online mortgage auction network/system including the 12 steps of “providing access to a preset pool of funds in the secondary 13 mortgage market via a mortgage auction network web site;” allowing users 14 of borrower nodes “to enter a plurality of bids at a desired interest rate for a 15 mortgage to be awarded from said preset pool of funds in the secondary 16 mortgage market;” and comparing the bids once a predefined time limit is 17 met “so that at least one or more of said bids submitted from said borrower 18 nodes qualifies for a portion of the preset pool of funds in the secondary 19 market.” 20 The Appellant contends that “neither the Fraser nor Levine references 21 teach or suggest that once a predefined time limit is met, the borrower bids 22 are compared to one another and at least one or more of the bids qualifies for 23 a portion of the preset pool of funds in the secondary mortgage market.” 24 (App. Br. 13-14 [emphasis in original]). 25 Appeal 2008-1470 Application 10/013,019 3 Fraser teaches an interactive mortgage and loan information and 1 trading system. The system includes a transaction server and a set of broker 2 stations. (Fraser, col. 3, ll. 12-16). The process of operation of the system 3 begins with a prospective borrower transmitting loan information to a loan 4 broker. (Fraser, col. 9, ll. 36-38). The broker then uses the broker station to 5 create a loan profile (Fraser, col. 10, ll. 28-34) which includes information 6 concerning the terms of the loan, the borrower and the underlying property 7 (Fraser, col. 3, ll. 53-67). 8 Lenders enter bids based on the loan profiles. (Fraser, col. 13, ll. 4-5). 9 When a bid is received from a lender, the transaction server transmits a bid 10 notification to the broker station associated with the loan profile. (Fraser, 11 col. 13, ll. 12-13). If the prospective borrower chooses to accept the bid, the 12 loan broker transmits an acceptance of the bid through the broker station to 13 the transaction server (Fraser, col. 13, ll. 43-45) and the transaction server 14 notifies the winning lender of the bid acceptance (Fraser, col. 13, ll. 49-50). 15 The loan broker transmits a complete loan application package to the lender 16 and the lender completes the loan. (Fraser, col. 14, ll. 3-7). 17 Levine discloses a system and method for analyzing, valuating, 18 buying and selling financial products such as loans. (Levine, col. 7, ll. 30-19 32). More specifically, Levine teaches an exchange system including an 20 exchange server which runs a web site. (Levine, col. 10, ll. 22-34). A loan 21 originator uses information including a requested interest rate collected from 22 a prospective borrower to process a loan and forward information regarding 23 whether the loan is approved or denied to the exchange system. (Levine, 24 col. 14, ll. 10-15 and col. 19, ll. 61-64). A person wishing to sell a loan 25 publishes the loan for sale on the exchange server. (Levine, col. 21, ll. 34-26 Appeal 2008-1470 Application 10/013,019 4 36). Mortgage bankers and investors may access the exchange system to 1 look for loans which may have been put up for sale or to input offers for 2 loans which meet the investors’ preset criteria. (Levine, col. 14, ll. 20-24; 3 col. 14, ll. 32-35 and col. 22, ll. 60-65). The seller is notified that an offer 4 has been made (Levine, col. 22, l. 66 – col. 23, l. 1). The seller may then 5 accept the offer, reject the offer or make a counter-offer. (Levine, col. 23, ll. 6 7-9). If an offer is accepted, the exchange system notifies the party who 7 made the offer. (Levine, col. 23, ll. 44-53). 8 Neither of the systems taught by Fraser and Levine have the capability 9 to qualify bidders for mortgages from a preset pool of funds. The Examiner 10 finds (Ans. 7) that Fraser teaches this element at column 2, line 44, which 11 reads: 12 13 The transaction server provides exogenous 14 information which might be of interest to lenders 15 and brokers for pricing loans, such as public bond 16 market and other interest rate market news, as well 17 as computed information regarding the pool of 18 loans, such as current and past low, average, and 19 high rates, for a variety of loans traded using the 20 system. 21 22 (Fraser, col. 2, ll. 40-46 [emphasis added to indicate l. 44]). The Examiner 23 finds (Ans. 7) that Levine teaches this element at column 3, lines 36-38, 24 which states that a mortgage banker may pool loans purchased from lenders 25 and advertise the pools of loans for sale to investors. Neither of these 26 passages would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a 27 system or method with a capability to award mortgages from preset pool of 28 funds. 29 Appeal 2008-1470 Application 10/013,019 5 On the record before us, the Appellant has shown that the Examiner 1 erred in rejecting claims 1-12 under section 103(a) as being unpatentable 2 over Fraser in view of Levine. 3 4 DECISION 5 We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-12. 6 7 REVERSED 8 9 10 11 12 jlb 13 SOFER & HAROUN LLP 14 317 MADISON AVENUE 15 SUITE 910 16 NEW YORK, NY 10017 17