Appeal 2007-0601
Application 09/792,290
processed feedback comprising [i.e., consisting of but not limited to] (one or
more items of) feedback received from at least two of said group members;
and transmitting (one or more items of) processed feedback to the networked
devices operated by the group members.
Further, Appellants’ independent claims contain no language
requiring that “feedback” from more than one individual user must be
combined (“aggregated”) into a unitary item of “processed feedback”;
neither do the independent claims require that all group members received
the same single item, or multiple items, of “processed feedback.”
DeNicola teaches receiving feedback (exam answers) from a plurality
of individual group members (Fact 2); processing that feedback to generate
processed feedback (a plurality of exam scores – one for each individual
group member)(Fact 2); and transmitting that processed feedback to the
group members’ devices, i.e. providing each individual group member with
his or her exam score (Fact 3).
Appellants argue that the language of claim 1 requires “combining
(e.g. aggregating) the feedback of two or more students to produce processed
feedback,” (Br. 8:24-25) but claims 1, 18 and 19 recite neither “combining”
nor “aggregating.”3 Appellants suggest that their invention enables the
student “to compare his or her answers with those of other students,” (Br.
8:26-27) but no independent claim contains such a limitation. We therefore
3 Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, a court construing these claims
in an infringement context, (given the “aggregating” limitation of dependent
claim 2), would interpret claim 1 as not being limited to aggregated
processed feedback, an interpretation directly contrary to that urged by
Appellants.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013