Appeal No. 2007-0384
Application No. 09/681,784
In addition, the specification states that “[l]earning solutions are
acquired in a plurality of manners including . . . purchasing rights to
copyrighted online content (books, videos, recordings, etc.) . . . and
acquiring learning solutions via an online auction” (id. at 10). The
specification also states that the data collected by this system can be mined
“to identify employees best suited to perform a unique task” (id. at 13).
DISCUSSION
1. CLAIMS
Claims 1-20 are pending and on appeal. The claims subject to each
rejection have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall
together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).1 We will focus on claims 1, 10, and
12, which are representative and read as follows:
1. A method for reducing a functional competency gap, the
method comprising:
defining an employment function and preferred method of
learning;
assessing functional competency based on the employment
function via an online self-assessment;
identifying at least one gap between an assessed functional
competency and a predefined competency required for the employment
function;
1 Although claims 2-9, 13, 16, and 18 are discussed under a separate heading
(Br. 6), these claims have not been separately argued: pointing out that these
claims “have limitations beyond claims 1 and 15” is not a separate argument.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”). Thus, Appellant has waived the right to have these claims
separately considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013