Appeal 2007-0768 Page 7
Application 10/430,883
1 patentably distinguish the claimed process from the prior art-disclosed
2 process because it accomplishes the same result, i.e., jury selection,
3 relying on In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA
4 1958). Answer 6-7.
5
6 skill in the art at the time of the invention to automate the providing
7 and accepting steps because this would speed up the process of
8 providing and receiving questionnaires, which is a purely known and
9 an expected result of automating a known manual process in the art."
10 Answer 7.
11 11. Appellants argue that the references do not teach categorizing
12 responses to a Juror Suitability Test form from prospective jurors and
13 assigning them to a group indicative of a trial type for which a
14 prospective juror is suitable to sit as a juror.
15 The novel features of the present invention in which prospective
16 jurors respond to a Juror Suitability Test and the responses are
17 categorized and assigned to a group indicative of at least one of a
18 plurality of trial types for which each of the plurality of prospective
19 jurors is suitable to sit as a juror is absent from the references, taken
20 either singly or in combination.
21
22 Br. 15.
23
24 12. Appellants also argue that, in contrast to the applied prior art, "the
25 claimed Juror Suitability Test is administered prior to any prospective
26 juror panel being assembled at a trial." Br. 14 (emphasis in original).
27 13. The examiner finally rejected claims 11-13 as being unpatentable
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over The Jury Research Institute. Answer 10.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013