Ex Parte Potter - Page 5



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

                       Rejection of claims 28 and the claims dependent thereupon.                                 

                       Appellant argues on page 16 of the brief, that the prior art cited by the examiner         
                does not teach the claim 28 limitation of “retesting said participant using a different           
                subset of said plurality of these questions, wherein said different subset is selected on a       
                basis independent of said answers which were answered incorrectly.”  Appellant asserts            
                on pages 16 and 17 of the brief:                                                                  
                       Lee discloses an educational system where students are presented with subject              
                       matter and they answer "a series of questions retrieved from a database of                 
                       questions associated with the particular lesson segment for the student." See              
                       column 7, lines 10-12. Lee also discloses that after "playing this remedial                
                       material, the same or different questions as those previously answered incorrectly         
                       will again be displayed and answered." See column 7, line 35-38 (emphasis                  
                       added). Therefore, Lee discloses selecting new questions based on the wrong                
                       answers provided by the student and redisplaying questions previously answered             
                       correctly.  As such, Lee fails to disclose Appellants [sic] explicitly recited             
                       limitation.                                                                                
                Appellant presents similar arguments on pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief.                         
                       We disagree with appellant’s characterization of Lee.  Lee discloses a teaching            
                system where material is presented to a student and when the material is presented to the         
                student a quiz is given to the student. See steps 153, 154 and 180 of figure 3 and                
                discussion in column 6, lines 15 through 26.  Lee teaches that questions are retrieved            
                from a database of questions and are presented to the student.  See column 7, lines 10            
                through 17.  Lee teaches that if the student does not answer all of the questions correctly       
                the material relating to the questions (remedial material) is presented to the student.  See      
                column 7, lines 23 through 30.  Alternatively, the remedial material may be presented if          
                the student’s score on the quiz is below a threshold amount.  Lee states “ [a]fter playing        
                this remedial material, the same or different questions as those previously answered              
                incorrectly will again be displayed and answered.”  Thus, Lee teaches that there are two          
                types of re-quiz(es) which can be given a) using the same questions as previously                 




                                                        5                                                         



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007