Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 6

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1    to consider what the teachings of that base reference are in order to determine                            
         2    whether there is any motivation for making the proposed modification.  The                                 
         3    Appellants conclude that where there is no benefit to making a proposed                                    
         4    modification, the legally required motivation to establish a prima facie case is                           
         5    absent. (Br. 6-7.)                                                                                         
         6        The Appellants contend that Lesaint is primarily concerned with a scheduling                           
         7    algorithm.  That reference deals with setting up schedules for service personnel in                        
         8    a particular manner to achieve particular objectives.  They contend that there is no                       
         9    benefit to modify the teachings of Lesaint incorporate additional features, because                        
        10    it does not enhance, in any way, the scheduling algorithm or technique of Lesaint’s                        
        11    teachings.  The Appellants also contend that the proposed modifications to Lesaint                         
        12    do not in any way facilitate achieving the objectives stated in the Lesaint reference.                     
        13    In other words, there is no teaching or suggestion from within the references for                          
        14    making the Examiner's proposed combination.  The Appellants again note that the                            
        15    Lesaint reference is concerned primarily with a rule based and stochastic                                  
        16    scheduling algorithm for efficiently distributing tasks based on available resources.                      
        17    They contend that the way in which that algorithm operates is not in any way                               
        18    enhanced by incorporating the teachings from the Bergeron reference relied upon                            
        19    by the Examiner when attempting to establish a prima facie case of obviousness                             
        20    against claims 1-8 and 10. (Br. 7.)                                                                        
        21        The Appellants argue that adding a rejection or acceptance feature from the                            
        22    Bergeron reference does not provide any benefit to the arrangement in the Lesaint                          
        23    reference because it does not make that system any more efficient to reach its                             
        24    intended objectives, and, in fact, it appears at least somewhat contrary to the                            
        25    intentions of Lesaint, which assumes that once an appropriate individual “reports                          

                                                           6                                                             


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013