Appeal 2007-0768 Page 2
Application 10/430,883
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2
3 The appeal is from a decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4-7,
4 11-19 over the prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b) (2002).
6 We AFFIRM.
7 Appellants, in the Brief2, argue the claims as a group with respect to
8 each ground of rejection. Pursuant to the rules, the Board selects
9 representative claims 1, 11 and 14 to decide the appeal with respect to each
10 ground of rejection, respectively. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
11 Claims 1, 11 and 14 read as follows:
12 1. A method for determining a trial type for which a proposed
13 juror is suitable, comprising:
14 a. forming a master database of names of citizens eligible to
15 serve as jurors from a set of all citizens residing within a trial court’s
16 jurisdiction;
17 b. forming a master jury wheel from the master database by
18 using a random selection procedure to select a smaller set of names of
19 citizens, said smaller set of names of citizens representative of a fair
20 demographic cross section of the set of all citizens residing within the
21 trial court’s jurisdiction;
22 c. randomly selecting a plurality of prospective jurors from the
23 plurality of names of citizens from the master jury wheel and storing
24 data in a database for a jury voir dire system comprising a name, a
25 social security number, a first juror identification number and a court
26 identification number for each one of the plurality of prospective
27 jurors;
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
6 June 2006) and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed 29 August
2006) and to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply,” filed 30 October 2006).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013