Ex Parte Ames et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2013

10990841 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LEAH AMES, KELLY BURGESS, MELINDA BURGESS, and
BENJAMIN ALAN WILSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-003197
Application 10/990,841
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003197
Application 10/990,841
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 8, 11, 12, and 28-37. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
11 A computer-based system for teaching a writing process,
comprising:
a server program, wherein the server program is
configured to provide to a user a plurality of writing type
options;
wherein said server program is configured to receive
from the user a writing type selection, wherein the writing type
selection is one of the plurality of writing type options;
wherein said server program is configured to receive
from the user a writing topic selection for the writing type
selection;
wherein said server program is configured to receive
from the user a first draft about a writing topic selection;
wherein said server program is configured to provide
guidance to the user for self evaluating the first draft;
wherein said server program is configured to prompt the
user to revise the first draft responsive to the user's self
evaluation and receive from the user a revised first draft about
the selected topic;
wherein said server program is configured to prompt the
user to wait a predetermined period of time;
wherein said server program is configured to prompt the
user to read aloud the revised first draft to a second person;
wherein said server program is configured to prompt the
user to obtain feedback from the second person responsive to
the reading aloud of the revised first draft;
Appeal 2011-003197
Application 10/990,841
3
wherein said server program is configured to prompt the
user to prepare a final draft by revising the revised first draft
responsive to the feedback obtained from the second person,
and receive from the user the final draft about the selected
topic; and
wherein said server program is configured to store the
final draft; and
at least one client program, where in the at least one
client program is in electronic communication with the server
program via network.

References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Driscoll
Eggert
Slattery
US 5,987,302
US 6,443,735 B1
US 6,514,085 B2
Nov. 16, 1999
Sep. 3, 2002
Feb. 4, 2003
Carter US 2005/0069847 A1 Mar. 31, 2005

McGraw Hill, The Research Process (from www.mhhe.com/mayfieldpub/
maner/resources/peerreview.htm) (last visited Dec. 4, 2007).

Nina D. Ziv, Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom: A Case Study,
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College
Composition and Communication (34th, Detroit, MI, Mar. 17-19, 1983).

Rejections
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a):
I. Claims 8, 11, 12, 28-32, 36 and 37 as unpatentable over Carter,
Driscoll, McGraw, and Ziv.
II. Claims 33 and 34 as unpatentable over Carter, Driscoll, McGraw, Ziv,
and Slattery.
Appeal 2011-003197
Application 10/990,841
4
III. Claim 35 as unpatentable over Carter, Driscoll, McGraw, Ziv,
Slattery, and Eggert.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 11, 12, 28-32, 36, and 37 as
unpatentable over a proposed combination of the teachings of Carter,
Driscoll, McGraw, and Ziv. Ans. 3-7, 9-12. We note that the Examiner has
made a particular finding or explanation as to how the prior art renders
obvious each claim limitation. See id.
Appellants separately argue each of independent claims 11, 12, 28,
and 29. Each of these arguments takes a similar approach. Appellants first
recite what the claim requires. Then Appellants state what Carter (the
primary reference) discusses and allege that such teachings do not teach the
claim limitation. Appellants also state that the secondary references do not
cure the alleged deficiencies of Carter, and go on to state what the secondary
references teach. Appellants then conclude that the references do not teach
or suggest each limitation of the claim.
Critically missing from Appellants’ Brief, however, is an analysis as
to what gaps, if any, exist in the Examiner’s reading of the claim language
on the proposed combination of the prior art. Appellants generally allege
error in the individual references but such general allegations attacking the
references in isolation fail to apprise us of error in view of the Examiner’s
proposed combination of references based on particular findings and
analysis. See also Ans. 9 (“Appellant’s arguments amount to a piecemeal
Appeal 2011-003197
Application 10/990,841
5
analysis of the rejection, in which the appellant merely asserts that neither
reference teaches this feature.” “The arguments do not refute, nor even
address what the combination of Carter and Driscoll would suggest …
according to the above analysis”). Accordingly, having reviewed the record
in light of the issues as raised by Appellants, we are not apprised of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11, 12, 28, and 29. Claims
8, 30-32, 36, and 37 are not argued separately (Br. 14), and fall with their
respective independent claim.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to Rejections II and III rely on the
unpersuasive allegations discussed above. Br. 14-15. As such, we sustain
Rejections II and III.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 8, 11, 12, and
28-37.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh