Appeal No. 2004-0344
Application No. 09/759,016
Puram at column 2, lines 49-50 and 59-66, and column 3, lines 25-
39. However, our review of these portions of Puram does not find
such a teaching. While these portions of Puram describe
interfaces that are accessible to users through the internet
browser, there is no indication that users submit a request to
contracted suppliers “by e-mail.” Moreover, the cited portions
of Puram fails to describe any notification to the supplier that
a new request has been entered for the supplier to review.
Rather, Puram appears merely to compare and match skills input by
candidates with skills desired by a user and that the operations
may be performed via the internet.
It may very well be that, in view of the disclosure of
Puram, and of the similarity between Puram and the instant
claimed invention, that it would have been obvious for the user
to submit a request for a skilled candidate directly to a
supplier via e-mail, rather than match candidates having certain
desired skills with a database of candidates via the internet.
However, the rejection before us is one of anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and not one of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-7
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the examiner has not shown that
the four corners of the Puram document describe every element of
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007