Appeal No. 2002-2078
Application No. 09/209,211
“entering information related to a plurality of hiring needs...,”
to column 2, lines 3-9, for “automatically cross-referencing...,”
to column 20, lines 3-4, for “determining whether one of said
identified candidates should be offered a job...,” and to column
1, lines 13-21, column 2, lines 17-19 and column 5, lines 10-13,
for “when it is determined that one of said identified candidates
should be offered more than one job...all jobs pertinent to said
one of said identified candidates are offered substantially
simultaneously...”
For their part, appellants argue that the examiner
improperly correlated the “hiring needs” of the claims to the
“job orders” of Stipanovich; improperly correlated the “business
entity” of the claims to the “temporary help business or agency”
of Stipanovich; and improperly correlated the “plurality of
distinct business units” of the claims to the “clients” of the
temporary help business of Stipanovich. We disagree.
Even though the environment of the instant invention may
differ from the scheduling of temporary personnel suited to
particular tasks in Stipanovich, as broadly claimed, we agree
with the examiner that the hiring “needs” of a single company
with multiple units is analogous to “job orders” which a company
may send to a temporary employment agency in order to fill hiring
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007