Appeal No. 2006-2574
Application No. 10/331,706
would have us apply to the instant claims and why any such
definition would not be applicable to Kishinsky’s inherent
disclosure that an agent’s skills or skill sets must be
“registered.”
While appellant again makes the argument, at page 3 of the
reply brief, that Kishinsky teaches that a programmer uses known
programming techniques to assign skill sets to agents with the
Petri Net, we again ask, how does the programmer make the
assignment unless there is some previous “registration” of the
skills of the agents?
Since the examiner has presented a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter and
appellant’s arguments have not convinced us of any error in that
case, we will sustain the rejection of claims 36 and 45, and
therefore of claims 37, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 52, and 53, under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 39-42 and 48-51
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because appellant argues only that
Mengshoel and Busey do not provide for the deficiencies of the
combination of Kishinsky/Zmolek in providing for a
“registration.” Since we have found no such deficiencies in the
Kishinsky/Zmolek combination, appellant’s argument in this regard
is not persuasive.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007