Ex Parte Stuppy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2013

10355045 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/355,045 01/31/2003 John J. Stuppy 29239-186575 8776
7590 05/17/2013
Venable
Post Office Box 34385
Washington, DC 20043-9998
EXAMINER
RADA, ALEX P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2013 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 JOHN J. STUPPY
____________

Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 41, 42, 44-49, and 63-73 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Abrahamson (US 5,002,491, iss. Mar. 26,
1991), Ziv-El (US 5,437,555, iss. Aug. 1, 1995), Lee (US 5,788,508, iss.
Aug. 4, 1998), and Daniels (US 5,310,349, iss. May 10, 1994). Claims 1-40,
43, and 50-62 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 63, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below
and is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
63. A method for instructing one or more students over a
network, comprising the steps of:
assigning a teacher privilege to a teacher to interact with
one or more students after the teacher logs in to the network;
establishing one or more learning sessions over the
network, said one or more learning sessions including at least
an independent learning session and a guided learning session,
wherein the independent learning session comprises a student
interaction with an instructional material without a teacher
interaction and the guided learning session comprises a teacher
communication of an instruction to one or more students;
supplying information corresponding to at least one
student profile over the network to a teacher workbook
executed at a teacher workstation and one or more student
workbooks executed at corresponding student workstations,
wherein the at least one student profile specifies at least a
student name and an identity of a course associated with one or
more instructional materials, and wherein the one or more
student workbooks are executed prior to any student interaction
with the one or more instructional materials based on a
corresponding student profile; and
Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
3
displaying on the teacher workbook records
corresponding to at least one student profile, including records
related to one or more instructional materials associated with a
course, wherein the teacher workbook allows the teacher to
selectively interface with one or more students engaged in the
guided learning session and the independent learning session,
and wherein the one or more student workbooks allow a student
interface during the guided learning session and the
independent learning session.

OPINION
The Appellant argues claims 41, 42, 44-49, and 63-73 as a group. See
App. Br. 7-15. We select independent claim 63 as the representative claim
and claims 41, 42, 44-49, and 64-73 stand or fall with claim 63. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 63 as
unpatentable over Abrahamson, Ziv-El, Lee, and Daniels is in error because
the Examiner’s finding that Abrahamson discloses the “supplying
information” step of method claim 63 is not adequately supported. See App.
Br. passim. The “supplying information” step of method claim 63 recites:
supplying information corresponding to at least one
student profile over the network to a teacher workbook
executed at a teacher workstation and one or more student
workbooks executed at corresponding student workstations,
wherein the at least one student profile specifies at least a
student name and an identity of a course associated with one or
more instructional materials, and wherein the one or more
student workbooks are executed prior to any student interaction
with the one or more instructional materials based on a
corresponding student profile.
At the outset, we note that the “supplying information” step is directed
to the supply of (1) information (2) corresponding to (3) at least one (4)
student profile to (5) one or more student workbooks executed at
Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
4
corresponding student workstations. First, the claim does not specify the
content of the supplied information other than that it corresponds to at least
one student profile. Second, the term “corresponding”1 as used in the claims
requires that the information is “similar or analogous” to at least one student
profile. Third, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “at least one student
profile” includes one student profile. Fourth, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “student profile” is delineated by the claim itself, i.e., “at
least a student name and an identity of a course associated with one or more
instructional materials.” As such, a “student profile” includes one student
name and the identity of one course associated with one or more
instructional materials. A student profile, as discussed in the Specification,
may include skill gaps and learning objectives, an ability level, work
completed, scores on mastery tests (DPs[, i.e., distributed practice tests)], or
other notes, however, these are examples of a student profile . Spec.2
Abstract, paras. [0047], [0299]. See also Spec. paras. [0060], [0085], [0086]
(test results are used to update and amend a student profile). However, these
examples of “student profile” are not required by claim 63. Additionally,
claim 63 does not require student profile information to be unique. But see
Apr. Br. 11, 14. Fifth, concerning the claim recitation “one or more student
workbooks executed at corresponding student workstations” the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “one or more student workbooks” includes one

1 “Corresponding,” as a verb used without an object, is defined as “to be
similar or analogous; be equivalent in function, position, amount, etc.
(usually followed by to ): The U.S. Congress corresponds to the British
Parliament.” DICTIONARY.COM (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
corresponding, last visited, May 1, 2013, def. 2.).
2 Citations to the Specification are directed to the Pre-grant Publication,
Stuppy (US 2003/0198930 A1, pub. Oct. 23, 2003), of the present US Patent
Application.
Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
5
student workbook at one student workstation. Additionally, a student
workbook refers to “instructional materials correlated with the student
profile.” Spec. Abstract. Examples of “instructional materials” include
“textbook pages, work sheets, software, simulations, tests, etc.” Id.
The Appellant asserts that claim 63 “requires supplying student name
and course identity to (not from) the student workstation for generating
student workbooks.” App. Br. 12-13. This is incorrect. Claim 63 requires
“supplying information corresponding to at least one student profile over
the network to . . . one or more student workbooks executed at
corresponding student workstations.” Emphasis added. As discussed above,
the claim does not specify the content of the supplied information to the
student workbooks other than that it corresponds to at least one student
profile.
The Examiner finds that Abrahamson discloses the use of a student
profile, wherein the student profile includes students’ names and a course
associated with instruction material and is maintained in a central database.
Ans. 4, 11-12; Abrahamson col. 12, ll. 23-27, col. 16, ll. 47-68. For
example, Figure 4O’ evidences that stored in memory is a student name,
e.g., Alice Atkins and a course, e.g., ENG121. See id. The Examiner also
finds that Abrahamson includes a student interface program that accepts and
interprets question and exercise programs which are downloaded to a student
computer from a teacher’s computer. Ans. 11, Abrahamson col. 12, ll. 37-
47. The downloaded question and answer programs are evidence of
supplying information corresponding to a student profile over a network to a
student workbook. The Appellant acknowledges Abrahamson’s disclosure
concerning the downloaded questions and answers, but does not offer a
cogent explanation why downloading question and answer programs do not
Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
6
correspond to supplying information corresponding to a student profile to a
student workstation. See App. Br. 13-14. As explained by the Examiner at
page 11 of the Answer:
Abrahamson discloses that a file of all students’ names for each
class is maintained by the central computer and within a
database, such that the student’s records within the network
including various roll files the student is associated with and in
combination with the database files in which grades are kept
encompass the student's profile, where such a profile clearly
includes at least a student's name and identified courses
associated with one or more instructional materials, wherein
courses are assigned to student's and these courses are
associated with instructional material to teach said courses.
Emphasis added. In other words, Abrahamson discloses the claimed
limitation concerning the supply of information that corresponds to the
student profile at least by transmission of the downloaded question and
answer programs from a teacher’s workstation to a student’s workstation.
Moreover, the question and answer programs are transmitted only to those
students in the course and content of the question and answers would be
associated with the identity of the course. See Ans. 11.
The Appellant asserts that claim 63 requires a personalized student
workbook. App. Br. passim, Reply Br. passim. This assertion is incorrect
as the claim does not require that the student workbook is personalized. See
supra. Accordingly, all of the Appellant’s contentions based on the
assertion that the student workbook is personalized are unpersuasive. As
such, the Appellant’s argument distinguishing Abrahamson from the
Appellant’s invention because Abrahamson “presents the same instructional
material to all students either on an overhead projector 20 or on a student
terminal 40” or Abrahamson’s instructional material and student terminal 40
are not “specific to each individual student” is unpersuasive. App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
7
Additionally the Appellant’s contention that “there is no need in
Abrahamson to use . . . student profile information for creating personalized
student workbooks” is also unpersuasive. Id. See Reply Br. 6. Put simply,
the Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate
with the language of claim 63.
The Appellant also contends that “the Examiner fails to address the
relevance of the cited prior art to the claimed requirement for ‘the one or
more student workbooks are executed prior to any student interaction with
the one or more instructional materials based on a corresponding student
profile.’” App. Br. 15. The Examiner explains in the Answer at page 12
that:
When the teacher selects a session, like English, which shows
the roll file of students for that particular session, which
preloads (executed) the session into memory prior to the
students interaction with the instructed material, thus one or
more student workbooks are executed prior to any student
interaction with the one or more instructional material based on
a corresponding student profile, meaning before the students
begin any lesson, the teacher would select the particular lesson
before any of the students are able to begin.
As seen in figures 4K-4O, when a teacher selects one of
the instructed materials such as English, Math, and Physics,
etc., after roll the teacher may review homework, select a lesson
and/ or start a quiz as shown in figure 2A-2B. When the
teacher selects a quiz for a particular lesson, that information is
preloaded into memory before the teacher gives the students the
go ahead to start the quiz. The word executed is interpreted to
mean that whatever the lessons the teacher may present, that
information is preloaded (executed) into memory prior to any
students interacting with the lesson material.3

3 “Execute” is defined as “[t]o perform an instruction. In programming,
execution implies loading the machine code of the program into memory and
Appeal 2011-002217
Application 10/355,045
8

The Appellant does not cogently explain why the Examiner’s finding
and accompanying explanation does not correspond to “the one or more
student workbooks are executed prior to any student interaction with the one
or more instructional materials based on a corresponding student profile” as
recited by claim 63.
The Appellant’s remaining arguments have been considered but do
not persuade us of Examiner error. Thus, for the foregoing reasons the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 63, and its dependent claims, as unpatentable
over Abrahamson, Ziv-El, Lee, and Daniels is sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 41, 42, 44-49, and 63-73.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls

then performing the instructions.” MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 26
(4th Ed. 1999).