Appeal No. 2004-0344
Application No. 09/759,016
Claims 1-7 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Puram.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it is
the examiner’s position that the instant claimed invention fails
to produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result” and, thus,
has no practical application. In particular, the examiner
alleges that the invention is not “useful” since the asserted
utility is not accomplished; it is not “tangible” because it is
no more than a manipulation of an abstract idea; and it is not
“concrete” because the result cannot be assured.
We disagree.
The claimed invention is certainly useful in matching the
skills wanted by a user with the skills of technicians employed
by a supplier. The invention clearly has a tangible result
because the user is given a choice of candidates from the
supplier from which to choose. The invention produces a concrete
result because a list, or choice, of candidates is provided to
the user. Of course, the specific result will vary with the user
because each user may be looking for different skills in a
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007