Appeal 2007-0611
Application 09/800,986
hiring specialists to participate together in real-time during a recruiting event
(Br. 4). However, as noted by the Examiner, these features/benefits are not recited
in the claimed invention. “Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because, … they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims … .” In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant further contends, that “there is no teaching that the ‘interview
notes’ [of Smith] constitute an ‘assessment’ upon which a hiring decision is
subsequently made” (Br. 5). We disagree. The customary meaning of an
assessment is a determination of the importance, size, or value (Finding of
Fact 18-19). Smith teaches displaying an interview notes screen to the job
provider upon which notes can be made and links are provided to the job seeker’s
personal details (Finding of Fact 12). Clearly, these interview notes are the job
provider’s assessment of the job seeker’s qualifications for the job, which are
utilized in the determination of whether or not to hire the candidate. As such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Smith and Puram.
Appellant did not present any arguments as to the separate patentability of
dependent claims 31, 4, and 6. As such, theses claims fall with claim 1.
Appellant further contends, with regard to claims 7, 8, and 11-13, that the
Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the
Examiner “has provided no factual evidence whatsoever to support his rejection of
these claims” (Br. 5). The Examiner holds that the official notice statements,
1 We note that claim 3 depends from canceled claim 2. Should further prosecution
of these claims occur, claim 3 should be amended to properly depend from a
pending claim.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013