Appeal No. 2004-0150
Application No. 09/772,481
Appellant submits that the combination fails to teach or suggest “correlating the
visual and audio data with the examination response data to determine if the user is
complying with predetermined examination procedures.” Appellant’s arguments in
support of the position, however, consist of pointing out deficiencies in Sonnenfeld and
Walker, taken individually. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375,
380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981)).
We consider the examiner’s conclusion with respect to prima facie obviousness
to be well founded. Claim 12 requires correlating audio data with the examination
response data to determine if the user is complying with predetermined examination
procedures. Walker fairly teaches as much, in ensuring that the examination response
data generated by a test-taker is generated by the properly authorized person in view of
the “voice-print” verification. Sonnenfeld teaches the addition of video monitoring, to
correlate the examination response data generated by a test-taker with video data to
ensure compliance with predetermined examination procedures. We note that the
claim is not specific as to how the “correlating” is to be done. Nor, for that matter, does
the claim even require that the “correlating” be performed by a machine.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007