Appeal No. 2002-2078
Application No. 09/209,211
individual hiring requirements,” as its clients.
At page 6 of the principal brief, appellants argue that
Stipanovich does not disclose that the vacancies to be filled are
for jobs within the temporary job agency. While it is not clear,
exactly, what claim language this argument relies upon to
distinguish over Stipanovich, as explained supra, the vacancies
to be filled may be considered to be jobs within the temporary
job agency because the temporary job agency recruits the
personnel, i.e., they are employees of the temporary job agency,
for work outside the agency.
Moreover, as explained supra, we do not agree with
appellants that the temporary help business and the clients of
Stipanovich cannot properly be correlated to “a business entity
including a plurality of distinct business units” as recited in
the claims, or that Stipanovich does not disclose a system for “a
business entity including a plurality of distinct business units”
for offering employment “within a business entity including a
plurality of distinct business units” as recited in the claims.
Having disposed of appellants’ arguments in the principal
brief as being unpersuasive of non-anticipation, we,
nevertheless, will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, 10,
18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because we find an argument by
appellants in the supplemental brief to be convincing that
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007