Ex parte SPECTOR - Page 4

               Appeal No. 2000-0580                                                                                               
               Application No. 09/025,347                                                                                         

               rejection does not provide any guidance as to what differences the examiner ascertained                            
               between Corder and the claimed subject matter.   Further, the examiner's comments in the first2                                                                 

               advisory action (Paper No. 8) to the effect that "Corder teaches all of the structural features of                 
               the present invention" and that "it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use these                 
               features in the order suggested by the applicant" are not particularly enlightening in this regard.                
               We find even more perplexing the examiner's explanation in the attachment to the second                            
               advisory action (Paper No. 10) that                                                                                
                      Corder teaches all of the independent structural features of the invention claimed                          
                      but fails to specifically recite the ability of these to perform the tasks suggested in                     
                      the functional language of the applicant's apparatus claims.  However, the                                  
                      invention of Corder is capable of demonstrating all of the specific tasks of the                            
                      invention claimed.                                                                                          
               In short, the examiner's position with regard to the differences between the claimed subject                       
               matter and the disclosure of Corder is not clear from the record.  Our analysis of the                             
               differences between Corder and the claimed subject matter follows.                                                 
                      Corder discloses a computer instructional system and method for improving                                   
               communication skills comprising a library of stored letters, words and phonetic sounds that                        
               make up words, as well as their phonograms (symbols representing the sounds of the                                 
               language), which are used, inter alia, to instruct students in the syllabication of words (see                     

                      2In making a determination as to obviousness, after the scope and content of the prior art are determined,  
               the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained.  See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
               383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).                                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007