Appeal No. 2007-0673
Application No. 09/847,794
As discussed supra we find that Latimer teaches displaying cashier
performance as the cashier scans items. The display of Latimer displays the
performance after each scan, and Latimer does not discuss displaying a goal
or a measured performance when the cashier logs off. We do not consider
either Berkson or Nashner to provide a teaching or suggestion to modify
Latimer to include such a display. As discussed supra Berkson teaches a
system which monitors the performance of a call center agent (sales person).
Though Berkson teaches that the performance monitoring period may be
variable, either on a per call basis, or over a time period, we do not find that
Berkson teaches that a report should be provided to the call agent at the
beginning and end of the evaluation period (i.e., beginning and end of the
work period). Further, we do not find that Nashner’s teaching of remotely
monitoring a patient’s training progress teaches or suggests displaying
performance goals to a patient at a beginning and end of a training (work)
period and displaying a measure of performance at the end of the training
(work) period. Thus, we do not find that the combined teachings of Latimer,
Berkson and Nashner suggest the invention as claimed in independent
claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) to be in error as we do not find that the combination of
Latimer, Berkson and Nashner teaches or suggests the limitations in
independent claims 1 and 11 which relate to displaying goal or a measured
performance.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013