Appeal No. 2004-0344
Application No. 09/759,016
While appellants admit that Puram describes a system wherein
technical service providers enter data about their skills and
users of these skills enter requirements and the system attempts
to make a match, appellants allege that this is “unlike the
claimed invention where suppliers respond to a Request for
Service (RFS) by submitting candidates to the requester” (brief-
page 19) so that whereas Puram includes a database of prospective
candidates, the claimed invention includes no such database.
Appellants also argue that the claimed invention is a
“proprietary system” so that the suppliers of the services have
contracts with the user of the system “which specify pre-
negotiated rates for the services” (brief-page 19).
The arguments re “pre-negotiated rates” in a “proprietary
system” and no “database” are not persuasive as they are not
directed to any claimed subject matter.
We are convinced, however, by appellants’ argument regarding
suppliers responding to a request by submitting candidates to the
requester. Each of the independent claims 1, 4 and 5, requires
submitting a 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. The examiner alleges that this is shown in
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007