Appeal No. 2006-1963
Application No. 09/951,321
28. A method of administering an incentive-based training program using a
central processing station which communicates with a training program
participant, said method comprising:
(a) presenting training materials to said training program participant;
(b) presenting a test comprising a subset of a plurality of test questions
and soliciting answers from said participant;
(c) determining a percentage score based on said answers which were
answered correctly; and
(1) if said percentage score is at least a pre-determined percentage,
awarding points to said participant; and
(2) if said percentage score is less than a pre-determined
percentage, then:
(i) retesting said participant using a different subset of said
plurality of test questions, wherein said different subset is selected
on a basis independent of said answers which were answered
incorrectly; and
(ii) scoring retest answers from said participant
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Lee 6,064,856 May 16, 2000
Lotvin 5,907,831 May 25, 1999
Rejections at Issue
Claims 28 through 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph as
being based upon a disclosure that is non-enabling. The examiner’s rejection is set forth
on page 4 the answer. Claims 28 through 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lotvin. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on
pages 4 and 5of the answer.1 Throughout the opinion we make reference to the briefs,
the answer and the Office action for the respective details thereof.
1 We note that the final rejection dated 12/30/2004 also contains a rejection based upon
35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph and 35 U.S.C. §101. However, on page 3 of the
answer, the examiner states that these rejections have been withdrawn.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007