Appeal No. 2004-0150
Application No. 09/772,481
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Walker and Sonnenfeld.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 4) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 10) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 9) for
appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In accordance with appellant’s proposed grouping of the claims (Brief at 3), we
select claim 12 as representative. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Walker discloses method and apparatus for computer-based educational testing.
The examiner finds, inter alia, that Walker teaches a recording device for recording
audio information about the examination site and user, in view of column 15, line 16
through column 16, line 11 of the reference. Walker describes a “biometric device,” in
particular a voice verification system, to verify test-taker identity. The examiner further
finds that Walker fails to expressly teach the use of a video recording device or visually
monitoring an examination site. However, the examiner turns to Sonnenfeld at column
3, line 28 et seq., for the teaching of a video camera that may be provided in a
computer-network based testing system for the purpose of proctoring the test. The
examiner finds that the teachings would have motivated the artisan to combine the
video camera monitoring system of Sonnenfeld with the system taught by Walker to
enhance verification of compliance with the requisite examination procedures.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007