Appeal No. 2007-0384
Application No. 09/681,784
program, “trainees will participate in a series of skills assessment tests
online. Then they’ll be able to see where there are gaps in their knowledge,
and will receive course suggestions.” References C and E-H also describe
various aspects of Saba’s software.
The Examiner argues that “Saba Software teaches a learning
management system” that meets the limitations of claim 1, except that “Saba
Software does not expressly teach that the querying is dynamic per se”
(Answer 5-7). However, the Examiner argues that it would have been
obvious “to dynamically query a database of available learning solutions”
because it is “old and well-known in the art of database management to
dynamically query databases in order to improve the likelihood of one
having access to the most up-to-date information available” (id. at 7).
The Examiner has pointed out where each limitation of claim 1 is
taught or suggested by References A-H (id. at 5-7). We conclude that the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that Saba’s software would have
made the method of claim 1 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant argues that “Reference A and Reference B each fail to
teach, disclose, or suggest that the Saba Software ‘automatically defin[es] a
development plan for the employee including learning solution identified
with the dynamic query’” (Br. 5). In particular, Appellant states that:
Reference B indicates that the Saba Software “uses
collaborative profiling to nonintrusively tailor lessons to
individual learning styles, preferences, and knowledge . . . ,”
(Reference B, Col. 1, line 41 - Col. 2, line 2), apparently once
the user has already identified the “lesson.” Reference B does
not indicate that the Saba Software automatically defines which
“lessons” a user should undertake. Reference A indicates that
the Saba Software “lets [a user] find offerings specific to [the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013