Appeal No. 2005-2415 Παγε 2
Application No. 09/994,309
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to an apparatus and method for determining
a training unit based on the learning needs of a trainee, of the type having an input
device, a data bank of all training modules and a selection device (specification, p. 1).
A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Tatsuoka 6,301,571 Oct. 9, 2001
Wall et al. (Wall) 6,371,765 Apr. 16, 2002
Cook et al. (Cook) 6,427,063 Jul. 30, 2002
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 to 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Cook.
Claim 6 stands rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 103(e) by Wall.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cook
in view of Tatsuoka.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed July 13, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007