Appeal 2007-0768 Page 12
Application 10/430,883
1 Appellants argue that the references do not teach or suggest
2 categorizing responses to a Juror Suitability Test form from prospective
3 jurors and assigning them to a group indicative of a trial type for which a
4 prospective juror is suitable to sit as a juror. FF 11.
5 Appellants' argument is directed to step f. of the claimed method. In
6 simple terms, step f. describes assigning group categories to prospective
7 jurors (and not the Test's responses, as Appellants have argued), indicative
8 of trial types for which they are suitable to sit as jurors, depending on
9 answers they give to a Juror Suitability Test form. The Juror Suitability Test
10 form is designed to determine whether a prospective juror is suitable for a
11 particular trial type (see step d.). It reads on the "The Prospective Juror
12 Questionnaire" The Jury Research Institute discloses. FF 2.
13 It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art following the process The
14 Jury Research Institute describes (FF 2) that prospective jurors in the trial
15 may attain a rating that would cause counsel to either exercise or not
16 exercise a peremptory challenge to the juror's suitability as a juror in the
17 trial. In rating prospective jurors based on their responses to the
18 questionnaire, The Jury Research Institute process is in effect categorizing
19 prospective jurors based on their suitability for the trial, that is, whether the
20 prospective juror is suitable for the type of trial for which he or she has been
21 called to serve. While The Jury Research Institute does not explicitly state
22 that the prospective jurors are categorized by groups indicative of a trial type
23 for which a prospective juror is suitable to sit as a juror, that is in effect what
24 The Jury Research process accomplishes. In other words, the scores are in
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013