Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 5

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1    special service request.  The Examiner further finds that Bergeron and Lesaint both                        
         2    disclose assigning field service workers to sites, based on priority, using remote                         
         3    communications.  Bergeron further discloses allowing the field service worker to                           
         4    accept or reject the assignment. (Answer 5-6.)                                                             
         5        Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of                                 
         6    ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include allowing the field                       
         7    mechanic of Lesaint to accept or reject a communicated task in order to more                               
         8    efficiently produce schedules that benefit the service company by assigning the                            
         9    most suitable and available field mechanic to the task.  The Examiner supports this                        
        10    conclusion with the rationale that allowing the technician to directly input his/her                       
        11    ability to perform a task would increase the efficiency of this process.  (Answer 6.)                      
        12        To overcome the elevator mechanic deficiency, the Examiner finds that Lesaint                          
        13    discloses a system that allocates tasks to field mechanics using remote                                    
        14    communications.  The Examiner points out that the term “elevator” only appears in                          
        15    the preamble of the claim and has no functional effect on the body of the claim                            
        16    (i.e., the mechanic being an elevator mechanic is the intended field use and the                           
        17    elements in the body of claim are structurally the same regardless of the industry in                      
        18    which they are applied).  Thus, the Examiner concludes that it would have been                             
        19    obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the                    
        20    system of Lesaint to assign mechanics to tasks concerning elevators in order to                            
        21    more efficiently allocate a plurality of field mechanics to a plurality of tasks in an                     
        22    industry with dynamic conditions.  (Answer 6.)                                                             
        23        The Appellants contend that none of the claims are obvious because the                                 
        24    motivation required under 35 U.S.C. §103 for modifying the Lesaint reference as                            
        25    proposed by the Examiner does not exist.  The Appellants argue that it is important                        

                                                           5                                                             


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013