Ex Parte Ramo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2013

13354722 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/354,722 01/20/2012 Simon Ramo NGC-367/004773-804 3702
7590 08/13/2013
Carmen B. Patti, Esq.
Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
44th Floor
One N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
PAGE, EVAN RANDALL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SIMON RAMO
____________________

Appeal 2013-004709
Application 13/354,722
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-004709
Application 13/354,722

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 23-27, 39-43, 60, and 61. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 23, 39, 60, and 61 are independent. Claims 23 and 39,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. An apparatus for interactive, computer-based,
automatically adaptable education, comprising:
a screen visible to one or more students in a classroom
and capable of accessing a network;
a central computer capable of accessing the network and
capable of transmitting a lesson over the network;
at least one educational module capable of accessing the
network, the at least one educational module being assigned to
a student, the at least one educational module being capable of
receiving from the assigned student and transmitting to the
central computer a response by the assigned student to the
lesson, the central computer being capable of receiving the
response, the central computer being further capable, based on
the response, of interactively and automatically selecting and
transmitting over the network for viewing on the screen, a new
lesson; and
an instructor’s computer assigned to the instructor and
capable of receiving at least one of the response and the lesson.

39. An apparatus for interactive, computer-based,
automatically adaptable education, comprising:
a screen visible to one or more students in a classroom
and capable of accessing a network;
a central computer capable of accessing the network and
capable of transmitting a lesson over the network;
Appeal 2013-004709
Application 13/354,722

3
at least one educational module capable of accessing the
network, the at least one educational module being assigned to
a student, the at least one educational module being capable of
receiving from the assigned student and transmitting to the
central computer a response by the assigned student to the
lesson,
the central computer being capable of receiving the
response, the central computer being further capable, based on
the response, of interactively and automatically selecting and
transmitting over the network for viewing on the screen, a new
lesson, wherein the central computer is capable of referring an
appropriate student based on the response to a separate
environment for individualized learning.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 23, 39-43, 60, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Siefert (US 6,334,779 B1; iss. Jan. 1, 2002); and
2. Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Siefert and Roschelle (US 6,885,844 B2; iss. Apr. 26,
2005).

OPINION
Anticipation – Claims 23, 39-43, 60, and 61
Claims 23 and 60
The Examiner finds that Siefert discloses each of the features of
claims 23 and 60. Ans. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the central
server (no reference numeral) in Figure 1 of Siefert discloses the claimed
central computer and the educational computer system (no reference
numeral) in Figure 3 of Siefert discloses the claimed instructor’s computer
that is capable of receiving the response or the lesson. Ans. 3. With regard
Appeal 2013-004709
Application 13/354,722

4
to the disclosure of the “instructor’s computer,” the Examiner points to
Figure 3 of Siefert and explains that the operator of the educational
computer system is interpreted to be an instructor and the system
automatically adjusts speed based on help screen inputs received from a
user. Id. Appellant argues that the adjusting learning speed up or down as
shown in Figure 3 of Siefert does not disclose the instructor’s computer as
claimed. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4-5.
Figure 3 of Siefert is described as a logic flow of a lesson
presentation. Siefert, col. 2, ll. 35-36. The cited portion of Figure 3 appears
to be an automated system function based on user input to a help screen. See
Siefert, Fig. 3. The Examiner has not explained how, let alone established
that, Figure 3 of Siefert discloses the claimed instructor’s computer.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23 and 60.

Claims 39 and 61
The Examiner finds that Siefert discloses each of the features of
claims 39 and 61. Ans. 2-4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Figure 3
of Siefert discloses referring an appropriate student based on the response to
a separate environment for individualized learning. Ans. 4. Appellant
argues that elaborating upon a lesson is not the same as referring an
appropriate student based on the response to a separate environment for
individualized learning. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5.
Appellant offers no special meaning for the phrase “separate
environment” in the Specification and does not contend that any special
meaning exists in the art. Appellant’s Specification merely indicates that
“[o]ptionally, the separate environment is a physical room” or “a virtual
Appeal 2013-004709
Application 13/354,722

5
room.” See Spec., para. [0047]. The plain meaning of “environment” is
simply “the surroundings or conditions within which something or someone
exists.” CHAMBERS 21ST CENTURY DICTIONARY (2001) (retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/chambdict/environment) (last
accessed August 2, 2013). Appellant offers no explanation regarding why
an “elaborate upon lesson” condition is not a separate environment relative
to a typical lesson condition illustrated in Figure 3 of Siefert or why the
system of Siefert is not referring a student to the separate environment via
the “elaborate upon lesson” condition.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claims 39 and 61. Appellant argues claims 40-43 as
a group with claim 39. See App. Br. 14. These claims fall with claim 39.

Obviousness – Claims 24-27
Claims 24-27 depend from claim 23. In the rejection of claims 24-27,
the Examiner explains that Rochelle teaches educational system interface
devices including a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, an
electronic book reader, and a tablet computer and explains that it would have
been obvious to have added the interface devices to Siefert in order to make
it easier to interface with the system of Siefert. Ans. 5. The Examiner
appears to suggest modifying the instructor’s computer from Siefert to
include these devices (as required by the claims). However, and as noted
above, the Examiner has not established that Siefert discloses an instructor’s
computer. Thus, the stated basis for the rejection of claims 24-27 does not
cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 23 and we also do not sustain
the rejection of claims 24-27.
Appeal 2013-004709
Application 13/354,722

6
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 39-43 and 61.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23-27 and 60.
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-IN-PART

rvb