Appeal 2007-0768 Page 6
Application 10/430,883
1 effect in 1998 (see page 27). Appellants do not dispute that the
2 Northern District of Texas Jury Plan qualifies as prior art.
3 4. The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 4-7, and 15-19 as being
4 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the Northern District of
5 Texas Jury Plan in view of The Jury Research Institute. Answer 4.
6 5. The Examiner has made a limitation-by-limitation analysis of the
7 claims, finding that the Northern District of Texas Jury Plan discloses
8 steps a., b., and c. of claim 1. Answer 4-5.
9 6. The Examiner finds the differences between the subject matter sought
10 to be patented and the Northern District of Texas Jury Plan are (a) the
11 steps in the claim directed to using a Juror Suitability Test form, i.e.,
12 steps d., e., and f. of claim 1, and (b) automating steps d. and e. over a
13 general purpose network. Answer 5-6.
14 7. As to steps d., e., and f. of claim 1, the Examiner finds them discussed
15 in The Jury Research Institute at page 4 (sections 1-2), page 6, page 8
16 (section 1), page 9 (section1) and page 10. Answer 5-6.
17 8. The Examiner finds "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
18 skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the Juror
19 Suitability Test of the Jury Research Institute in the well known jury
20 selection process in order to expedite the jury selection process by
21 allowing a more focused and thus quicker voir dire process." Answer 6.
22 9. As to automating steps d. and e. over a general purpose network, the
23 Examiner appears to argue that doing so merely provides automatic
24 means for performing the manual activity necessary to conduct the
25 prior art jury plan and that this difference (automatic v. manual) cannot
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013