Ex Parte Potter - Page 3



                Appeal No. 2006-1963                                                                              
                Application No. 09/951,321                                                                        

                                                     Opinion                                                      
                       We have considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the            
                examiner and the evidence of lack of enablement and obviousness relied upon by the                
                examiner in support of the rejections.  We have likewise, reviewed and taken into                 
                consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along      
                with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set          
                forth in the examiner’s answer.                                                                   
                       With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the                   
                examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for the                 
                reasons stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 28 through 37         
                under                                                                                             
                35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, however we will sustain the examiner’s rejections of             
                claims 28 through 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                                                    

                       Rejection of claims 28 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph.                   
                       Appellant argues, on page 12 of the brief, that the specification discloses that in        
                order to prevent the participant of the test from retaking the same test, questions for the       
                retest are drawn randomly from a pool of questions. Thus, appellant argues on page 13 of          
                the brief that there is no skewing of the questions towards incorrectly answered material,        
                and it would not require undue experimentation to select test questions independent of            
                the incorrect answers given.  Appellant presents similar arguments on pages 1 and 2 of            
                the reply brief.                                                                                  
                       On pages 6 and 7 of the answer, the examiner responds to appellant’s arguments             
                concerning the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph.  The examiner states on           
                pages 6 and 7 of the answer:                                                                      
                       In appellant's claim language they specifically recite that the selection is not           
                       based upon incorrectly answered questions. This limitation recites specific                
                       features, which are to be used in the selection, and adds a specific purpose to the        
                       selection, thereby removing the complete randomness of the selection as                    
                       described in                                                                               


                                                        3                                                         



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007