Appeal No. 2002-2078
Application No. 09/209,211
needs. Such “job orders” stipulate the necessary skills of the
temporary employee and, as such, is an indication of “hiring
needs.” We also fail to see why the temporary help business or
“agency” may not be considered a “business entity,” as claimed.
It is true that the instant claims are directed to recruiting
personnel for the business entity; however, the temporary
employment agency of Stipanovich does recruit personnel for a
different agency, or business entity, and, in doing so, the
temporary employment agency, in practice, is really recruiting
personnel for itself which employees are then forwarded to the
requesting business entity as temporary workers.
Further, we also agree with the examiner’s correlation of
Stipanovich’s “clients” of the temporary employment agency to the
claimed “plurality of distinct business units” because the
temporary employment agency, as the “business entity,” is really
sending its employees, or recruited personnel, to work in a
“plurality of distinct business units” which happen to be clients
of the temporary employment agency. Even though they may be
independent businesses, these clients are clearly “a plurality of
distinct business units,” as claimed, and it is certainly
reasonable to consider, for the purposes of temporary employment,
that the temporary employment agency is a “business entity” which
includes “a plurality of distinct business units each having
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007