Appeal No. 2002-2078
Application No. 09/209,211
Stipanovich does not disclose each and every limitation set forth
in the instant independent claims.
At pages 1-4 of the supplemental brief, appellants point out
that the invention is also directed to a solution to the problem
of exacerbation of costs inherent in different divisions of the
same company competing for the same individuals. The claimed
solution to that problem, in part, is in “simultaneous” job
offers to each candidate who is qualified for more than one job
with different divisions of the employing organization. The
simultaneity of the job offers prevents price competition and
makes it more likely that some division of the organization will
obtain the services of the desirable employee since more than a
single choice is offered at the same time.
Each of the independent claims calls for all jobs pertinent
to an identified candidate to be “offered substantially
simultaneously” to the candidate (claims 1, 19) or that when an
identified candidate is to be “offered more than one job,” all
the pertinent jobs are combined “into a single offer of
employment” (claim 10).
The examiner identifies these limitations in Stipanovich as
being disclosed somewhere in column 1, lines 13-21, column 2,
lines 17-19, or column 5, lines 10-13. However, our review of
these portions of Stipanovich reveals a disclosure of “stacking
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007