Appeal No. 2006-0748 Page 3
Application No. 09/740,528
control means also taught by DeNicola." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellant
argues, "There is no suggestion of transmitted student images with respect to either
student testing in general or the Test Administrator in particular." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claims at issue to determine their scope. Second,
we determine whether the construed claims would have been obvious.
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question "[t]he Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must
consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the
prior art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Here, claims 1, 8, and 14 recite in pertinent part the following limitations:
"transmitting a video frame of a student to the server at least during the exam to verify
the identity of the student. . . ." Accordingly, the independent claims require transmitting
a video frame of a student to a server while the student is taking an exam.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007