Appeal No. 2005-0985
Application No. 09/003,000
(filed Jul. 9, 2004) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
Lee is directed to an interactive computer aided “natural” learning method and
apparatus. Appellant argues, however, that Lee does not teach or suggest storing
profiles of learners, “which contain information about characteristics of each learner
including information about each learner’s curriculum, teaching strategies, present
standing and personalized information,” and using the profile to select and make a
presentation to the learner as claimed. (Brief at 6.)
The examiner points out, by page, line, and direct quotation, where Lee is
deemed to disclose each feature of claims 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. (Answer at 3-4.)
Appellant’s remarks in the Brief do not persuade us of error in the examiner’s finding of
anticipation.
Appellant submits that “nowhere are teaching strategies described in Lee.” (Brief
at 7.) Appellant acknowledges the examiner’s finding that Lee’s disclosure of “how
much and what type of material each student can access” is a disclosure of “teaching
strategies,” but argues that such an assertion could only be with “hindsight.” (Id.)
For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element
of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this
is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007