Appeal 2007-0768 Page 9
Application 10/430,883
1 19. Appellants also argue that "automation of the process is not disclosed
2 in the applied references." Br. 16.
3 20. The examiner finally rejected claim 14 as being unpatentable under 35
4 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over The Jury Research Institute
5 in view of the Northern District of Texas Jury Plan. Answer 13.
6 21. Claim 14 depends on claim 11.
7 22. To address the features of claim 14, the Examiner cites the Northern
8 District of Texas Jury Plan, finding that it "teaches transmitting a
9 summons for jury service to each one of said plurality of prospective
10 jurors that is suitable, said summons including an assigned report date
11 for said qualified prospective juror to report to the trial court for jury
12 service," citing page 17. Answer 13.
13 23. Appellants do not discuss the Northern District of Texas Jury Plan and
14 therefore do not dispute the Examiner's finding of FF 22.
15 24. Appellants’ complete argument is:
16 It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has
17 mischaracterized the content of claim 14. In particular, the Examiner
18 characterizes the claim as summoning the juror before performing
19 the suitability test, and therefore asserts that The Jury Research
20 Institute discloses this feature.
21 To the contrary, claim 14, as depending from claim 11,
22 transmits a summons only to those jurors who are suitable for the
23 trial, the suitability test having already been administered.
24 Accordingly, Appellants respectfully request that the Honorable
25 Board of Appeals and Interferences Reverse the rejection of claim
26 14 under 35 US.C. [sic U.S.C.] § 103.
27
28 Br. 16-17.
29
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013