Appeal 2007-0601
Application 09/792,290
Claim 12
Claim 12 calls for feedback to be “identified based on the individual
group members that transmitted the same thus allowing each group member
to identify a source of the feedback.” Because DeNicola teaches
transmitting processed feedback in the form of an individual’s exam score,
back to that individual (Fact 3), that individual may naturally identify a
source of the feedback, specifically his or her own exam answers. We
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
� 102.
Claims 4 and 5
Appellants’ argument with respect to the obviousness of claims 4 and
5 is the same argument advanced with respect to independent claim 1, i.e.
that neither DeNicola nor Shiigi teach “transmitting processed feedback to a
group member, comprising feedback received from at least two group
members and regarding material being presented” (Br. 21:9-10). For the
reasons discussed supra, we find that DeNicola meets these limitations. We
further agree with the Examiner that Shiigi suggests student use of wireless
personal digital assistants having styli (Fact 5), and that it would have been
obvious to modify DeNicola to include student use of such devices because
of their light weight and ease of use (Answer 8:3-10). We therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. � 103(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013