Ex Parte Parks et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-0344                                                        
          Application No. 09/759,016                                                  

          said to facilitate the procurement process for technical services           
          contractors.                                                                

               Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:           
               1.  A Skills Matching Application (SMA) which allows a user            
          to communicate requirements to technical service suppliers in a             
          way that significantly reduces the process time and improves the            
          accuracy of requests sent to suppliers comprising:                          
               means for accessing the SMA from a Requisition/Catalog                 
          (REQ/CAT) application;                                                      
               means for prompting a user through a series of screens to              
          enter a Statement of Work (SOW) and complete a skills detail                
          checklist for each of the technical skills requested;                       
               means for submitting the request to contracted suppliers by            
          e-mail notification notifying the supplier that a new request has           
          been entered into the SMA application for them to review and                
          submit a candidate against;                                                 
               means for receiving from a supplier a candidate or                     
          candidates with appended resumes as appropriate; and                        
               means for displaying for the user the supplier responses and           
          associated resumes.                                                         
               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Puram et al. (Puram)         6,289,340          Sep. 11, 2001               
                         (filed Aug. 3, 1999)                                         
               Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking             
          utility, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as not being           
          enabled because of the lack of utility.                                     
                                         -2–                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007