Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner may take notice of facts or common knowledge in the art
which are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy
dispute. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). If
Appellant fails to challenge the Examiner’s notice and it is clear that he has been
given ample opportunity to make such challenge, the Examiner’s finding will be
considered conclusive. Id. at 1091-92, 165 USPQ at 421. To challenge the
Examiner’s notice, Appellant must present evidence to the contrary. Compare In
re Knapp-Monarch Co. 296 F.2d 230, 232 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961) (considering
challenge to taking of judicial notice by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board).
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s main argument for patentability is based on the assumption that
the invention requires separate interfaces for receiving and presenting the
assessment of a candidate during an employer-hosted recruiting event. However,
the claimed invention, as defined by claim 1, requires only at least one server
configured to host an interface for receiving and an interface for presenting.
Nowhere in claim 1 is there any indication that a separate interface must be used
for receiving and presenting the assessment as asserted by Appellant.
Appellant presents assertions regarding various aspects and/or benefits of the
invention, such as it being directed to a multi-faceted system for assessing
employee candidates in real time, and that the separate interfaces enable different
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013