Ex Parte Carp et al - Page 15

                Appeal  2007-0768                                                    Page 15                  
                Application  10/430,883                                                                       

           1          All of Appellants' arguments having been addressed and found                            
           2    unpersuasive as to error in the rejection, the rejection is affirmed.                         
           3                                                                                                  
           4    The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                      
           4 over The Jury Research Institute in view of the Northern District of Texas                       
           5                                                                                                  
           5 Jury Plan.                                                                                       
           6                                                                                                  
           7                                                                                                  
           8          Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is based on a                          
           9    mischaracterization of claim 14. FF 24.  According to Appellants, the                         
          10    Examiner characterized claim 14 as describing a step of transmitting a                        
          11    summons to a juror before the suitability test is administered. Appellants                    
          12    argue that claim 14 says otherwise; that is, the summons is transmitted after                 
          13    the suitability test is administered.                                                         
          14          However, claim 14 leaves open the possibility that the summons is                       
          15    transmitted before the suitability test is administered. Claim 14 does not                    
          16    place any limitation on the order in which the steps of transmitting the                      
          17    summons and administering the suitability test are to be performed. Claim                     
          18    14 states: “transmitting a summons for jury service to each one of said                       
          19    plurality of prospective jurors that is suitable,” the suitability of the                     
          20    prospective jurors being determined by the suitability test described in claim                
          21    11.  Accordingly, claim 14 simply requires the summons to be administered                     
          22    to jurors determined to be suitable. Claim 14 does not specify when the                       
          23    jurors’ suitability must be determined and does not preclude transmitting the                 
          24    summons to jurors determined not to be suitable. Claim 14 encompasses a                       
          25    scenario whereby the summons is transmitted to all prospective jurors before                  
          26    determining which of the summoned jurors are suitable to sit on the jury.                     
          27    The result is consistent with what claim 14 recites, i.e., “transmitting a                    



Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013