Appeal 2007-0768 Page 16
Application 10/430,883
1 summons for jury service to each one of said plurality of prospective jurors
2 that is suitable.”
3 Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that the summons is transmitted
4 after the suitability test is administered is not commensurate in scope with
5 what is claimed. Its acceptance requires us to read into the claim a step of
6 transmitting the summons after administering the suitability test. However,
7 given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification
8 as interpreted by one of ordinary skill, claim 14 requires no more than
9 transmitting the summons to suitable jurors and that can be accomplished
10 before the suitability test is administered.
11 Appellants have not disputed that the prior art teaches the features of
12 claim 14 if the claim is given the characterization that Appellants allege the
13 examiner has given it, i.e., transmitting the summons before the suitability
14 test is administered. FF 25. Since we have found that the broadest reasonable
15 construction of claim 14 consistent with the specification as interpreted by
16 one of ordinary skill encompasses the Examiner’s alleged characterization,
17 Appellants have failed to show error in the rejection.
18 Accordingly, the rejection is affirmed.
19
20
21 CONCLUSION OF LAW
22 On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the
23 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art. The Examiner’s
24 evidence and rationale is sufficient to make out a prima facie cases of
25 obviousness of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013