Appeal No. 2007-0384
Application No. 09/681,784
employee including [a] learning solution identified with [a] dynamic query.”
Reference B, for example, states that the Saba software “uses collaborative
profiling to nonintrusively tailor lessons to individual learning styles,
preferences, and prior knowledge” (page 10, paragraph bridging the left and
center columns). Thus, the references reasonably appear to teach
“personalized recommendations” that are automatically generated based on
the gap analysis.
In addition, we agree with the Examiner that Reference B provides
further evidence that the method of claim 1 would have been obvious. In
particular, Reference B states that Saba’s Software “uses collaborative
profiling to nonintrusively tailor lessons to individual learning styles,
preferences, and prior knowledge; [and] to send personal email notices about
upcoming classes or the need to update a certification.” Id. Reference B
does not appear to expressly discuss the gap analysis features of Saba’s
software. However, we find that, when Reference B is read in context with
the other references applied by the Examiner, which clearly describe the gap
analysis (see Reference A), the references as a whole describe e-mail notices
that are automatically generated based on the results of the gap analysis.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 would have been obvious over Saba’s software, as evidenced by
References A-H, which Appellant has not rebutted. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2-9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and
20 fall with claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013