Appeal No. 2007-0384
Application No. 09/681,784
user’s] industry, as well as offerings that are targeted for
specific roles, certifications, and competencies.” (Reference A,
lines 21-22). Reference A similarly does not indicate that the
Saba Software automatically defines which “offerings” a user
should undertake.
(Id.) Instead, Appellant argues, “in Saba, the user identifies the ‘lesson(s)’ –
a ‘development plan’ including ‘learning solutions’ is not ‘automatically
defined’ (Reply Br. 1-2).
In addition, Appellant argues, the “Examiner fails to establish a prima
facie case that ‘it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify Saba Software to dynamically
query a database of available learning solutions.’” (Br. 5.) In particular,
Appellant argues that, because neither Reference A nor Reference B teaches
or suggests that the Saba Software “‘automatically defin[es] a development
plan for the employee including learning solution identified with the
dynamic query,’ . . . there is no teaching or suggestion in Reference A or
Reference B to modify the Saba Software to dynamically, i.e., automatically,
query a database of available learning solutions” (id.).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. Reference A describes a
global network of learning offerings. In addition, Reference A states that
individual learners can “[p]lan and buy learning based on personalized
recommendations.”
Reference A does not expressly state that this network can be
automatically queried or that these “personalized recommendations” are
automatically generated based on the results of the gap analysis. However,
when the references are read in context and as a whole, we agree with the
Examiner that they teach “automatically defining a development plan for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013