Appeal No. 2005-2415 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/994,309
. . . a training method for automatically determining and meeting the
training needs of training participants comprising entering the learning
objectives, background knowledge and requested topic of the learning
needs of a training participant (Col. 4, lines 22-57), determining all training
modules responsive to a user's entry (Col. 5, lines 15025). Identifying
selected training modules dependent upon a user's background
knowledge and defining a training unit customized to a user from the
multiple training modules previously identified (Col. 5, lines 41-67).
Appellants argue that there is no culling and combining procedure disclosed in
Wall but rather it is up to the user to ultimately select all items to be included in the
training session, even though the user may be assisted in this procedure by a number
of prompts.
The examiner does not contest this argument of the appellants. Rather, the
examiner argues that claim 6 does not:
recite a training method for automatically determining and meeting the
needs of training participants. Appellant's claim 6 recites the limitations for
a search engine that may be used by a student to identify and recall
stored training modules from a database of such elements. [answer at
page 8].
We do not agree with the examiner. Claim 6 clearly recites "automatically
determining learning needs of a training participant." In addition, claim 6 recites "from
among said training modules responsive to said entry, identifying selected training
modules."
In addition, we agree with the appellants that Wall does not describe the feature
of automatically determining the learning needs of a training participant. In fact, Wall
teaches that the system is flexible so that a student is capable of selecting any lesson
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007