Appeal No. 2005-2415 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/994,309
33). While each of these customized instruction units may be considered a training
module as found by the examiner, we agree with the appellants that Cook does not
describe that the various training modules or customized virtual tutors have any
dependencies one on each other. Therefore, there is no description of the requirement
in claim 1 of:
generating a training unit by combining a number of said training modules
taking said dependencies of said training modules on each other into
consideration.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cook in view of Tatsuoka. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1
and further recites that the data bank is a data bank containing "a plurality of medical
education training modules as said training modules." The examiner has relied on
Tatsuoka for describing a combination of modules for training for the diagnosis and
training participants in their treatment of medical conditions.
As we stated above, we find that Cook does not describe training modules with
dependencies. In addition, Cook does not suggest training modules with dependencies.
We have examined the disclosure of Tatsuoka and find that Tatsuoka does not cure the
deficiencies of Cook. Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn lastly to the examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Wall. It is the examiner's view that Wall describes:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007