Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986
Appellant, is not recited in the rejected claims (Answer 8). The issue before us is
whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6-
8, and 11-13 as unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Puram.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Smith teaches a method and apparatus for automatically matching
activities or entities on the basis of data objects corresponding thereto (Smith,
col. 1, ll. 18-21).
2. Smith teaches that the prior art suffers from the general problem of
“how to bring together the right person and the right job” (Smith, col. 1, ll. 48-50).
Smith discloses that Smith’s invention “addresses the problem of matching
coincidental needs [e.g., of employer and employee] relating to an activity or entity
[e.g., a job]” (Smith, col. 2, ll. 48-49).
3. One of the first steps which must be undertaken by a job provider is to
populate a database by generating a job profile 123 by quantifying the job using a
classification system (Smith, col. 15, ll. 54-60 and Fig. 6).
4. Similarly, a job seeker must create a personal profile 126 by
quantifying the job seeker’s personal profile (e.g., skills) using a classification
index (Smith, col. 15, ll. 60-64).
5. The job seeker’s personal profile 126 is compared with the current job
profiles 123, and a job summary screen 124 displaying the matches is provided to
the job seeker (Smith, col. 15, l. 65 to col. 16, l. 11).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013