Appeal 2007-0768 Page 8
Application 10/430,883
1 14. The Examiner has made a limitation-by-limitation analysis of the
2 claims, finding that The Jury Research Institute discloses steps a. and
3 b. of claim 11. Answer 10-11.
4 15. The Examiner finds the difference between the subject matter sought to
5 be patented and The Jury Research Institute is in automating steps a.
6 and b. using a host server over a general purpose network. Answer 11.
7 16. As to automating steps a. and b. using a host server over a general
8 purpose network, the Examiner appears to argue that doing so merely
9 provides automatic means for performing the manual activity
10 necessary to conduct the prior art jury plan and that this difference
11 (automatic v. manual) cannot patentably distinguish the claimed
12 process from the prior art-disclosed process because it accomplishes
13 the same result, i.e., jury selection, relying on In re Venner, 262 F.2d
14 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Answer 11-12.
15 17. The Examiner finds "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
16 skill in the art at the time of the invention to automate the providing
17 and accepting steps because this would speed up the process of
18 providing and receiving questionnaires, which is a purely known and
19 an expected result of automating a known manual process in the art.
20 The Jury Research Institute discusses the want to expedite the jury
21 selection process by allowing a more focused and thus quicker voir
22 dire process. See page 6, section 2." Answer 12.
23 18. Appellants argue that "the Juror Suitability Test of the claimed
24 invention is administered prior to a prospective juror being summoned
25 as a panel to court for a trial." Br. 16 (emphasis in original).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013