Appeal 2007-0601
Application 09/792,290
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Claims 2 and 10
In contrast to claim 1, claim 2 does recite that “the processing
includes aggregating,” and claim 10 recites “further comprising the step of
aggregating the feedback.” DeNicola teaches a “client level account
management system,” by which a client, e.g. the employer of the persons
receiving the training, may retrieve all students’ exams including questions
and corresponding answers with connotation of correct or incorrect, as well
as the client entity’s overall ranking of student performance relative to other
clients on a regional national and global scale, as well as percentile ranking
by department or division, by course, by class, and by student (Fact 4). We
note that claims 2 and 10 require that aggregating be done, but neither claim
2 nor claim 10 (nor parent claim 1) contains language that requires that
aggregated feedback be provided to individual group members. As
discussed supra, because “feedback” is interchangeably singular or plural,
the “processed feedback” may fairly be construed to consist of many items
of information, only some of which are provided to individual group
members (students). We therefore find that a client’s ability to retrieve a full
set of students’ exam answers and scores meets the claimed step of
“aggregating feedback.” We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013