Appeal 2007-0768 Page 4
Application 10/430,883
1 suitable, said summons including an assigned report date for said
2 qualified prospective juror to report to the trial court for jury service.
3
4 ISSUES
5
6 Appellants contend that the Examiner has not shown that the
7 following claimed limitations are taught or suggested in the cited prior art:
8 with respect to claim 1:
9 • categorizing responses to a Juror Suitability Test form from
9 prospective jurors and assigning them to a group indicative of a trial type for
10
10 which a prospective juror is suitable to sit as a juror (see FF 11 below); and,
11
12 • administering the claimed Juror Suitability Test prior to any
12 prospective juror panel being assembled at a trial (FF 12);
13
14
15 with respect to claim 11:
16 • administering the claimed Juror Suitability Test prior to any
16 prospective juror panel being assembled at a trial prior to a prospective juror
17
17 being summoned as a panel to court for a trial (FF 18); and,
18
19 • automating the process (FF 19); and,
20
21 with respect to claim 14:
22 • transmitting a summons only to those jurors who are suitable for the
22 trial, the suitability test having already been administered (FF Error!
23
23 Reference source not found.).
24
25
26 The issue is whether Appellants have established that the references
27 do not teach or suggest the claimed limitations and thus shown that the
28 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being unpatentable over the prior
29 art.
30
31
32
33 FINDINGS OF FACT
34
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013