Intelliguard Corp.

Description

The initial burden is on the examiner to provide some suggestion of the desirability of doing what the applicant has done. To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references.

One of our searchers, David Michaels, J.D., B.Eng., has a 4 year Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. He has programming experience in C and Fortran. He has studied business at York University and patent law at McGill University. He has a Doctor of Jurisprudence (J.D.) degree from the University of Honolulu School of Law.

Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Smith. Jones discloses the use of borrower information gathered during an interview as input to a system for predicting the credit worthiness of a borrower. The credit score output by this system is then used as a basis for matching borrowers with mortgage lenders based on borrower credit scores. Lenders whose selection criteria match the credit score of the borrower are listed as potential lenders to the borrower.

Company contacts

Products & services

Similar companies nearby