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