Appeal 2007-0768 Page 13
Application 10/430,883
1 fact group categories indicative of a type of trial for which a prospective
2 juror is suitable to sit as a juror.
3 Appellants also argue that the references do not teach that the claimed
4 Juror Suitability Test is administered prior to any prospective juror panel
5 being assembled at a trial. FF 12. However, this argument is not
6 commensurate in scope with what is claimed. Its acceptance requires us to
7 read into the claims a step of administering the Test to a prospective juror
8 panel prior to being assembled at a trial. However, given their broadest
9 reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims on
10 appeal require no more than providing the Test to prospective jurors and
11 accepting their responses over a computer network, and that can be
12 accomplished while a prospective juror panel is assembled at a trial. In re
13 Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) (“Many of
14 appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because, … they are not based on
15 limitations appearing in the claims ….”).
16 All of Appellants' arguments having been addressed and found
17 unpersuasive as to error in the rejection, the rejection is affirmed.
18
19
20
21
22 The rejection of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Jury Research
22 Institute.
23
24
25 The Examiner has presented evidence and a reasoned analysis in
26 support of her contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013