Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 3

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1           a communication module that facilitates communication between the                                   
         2           mechanic and a base location for providing the mechanic an indication                               
         3           of a special service request, for allowing the mechanic to selectively                              
         4           accept an assignment of the special service request and for allowing                                
         5           the mechanic to communicate whether the mechanic accepts the                                        
         6           assignment to the base location; and                                                                
         7           a portable mechanic interface that is operative to allow the mechanic                               
         8           to remotely access information from or provide information to the                                   
         9           planning, information and communication modules, respectively.                                      
        10                                                                                                               
        11        This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed August 8,                               
        12    2005.  The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on January 12,                        
        13    2006, and the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on                                  
        14    April 3, 2006.  A Reply Brief was filed on June 5, 2006.                                                   
        15                                           PRIOR ART                                                           
        16        The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of                                       
        17    unpatentability:                                                                                           
        18 Bergeron  US 4,922,514 May 1, 199018                                                                                                              
        19 Lesaint  US 6,578,005 B1 Jun. 10, 200319                                                                                                              
        20                                                                                                               
        21                                          REJECTIONS                                                           
        22        Appellants seek review of the following Examiner’s rejections.                                         
        23        Claims 1-8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over                              
        24    Lesaint and Bergeron.                                                                                      
        25        Claims 12-16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious                            
        26    over Lesaint.                                                                                              


                                                           3                                                             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013