Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 in,” or “calls in,” that individual will be assigned the task in question. There is no
2 discussion anywhere within Lesaint about giving an individual the option of
3 accepting or rejecting a task. The Appellants conclude that Lesaint appears to
4 prefer the arrangement described in that document to enhance the efficiencies of
5 the scheduling algorithm, and that without some benefit extending from a proposed
6 combination (absent Applicant's own teachings regarding making such an
7 arrangement), there is no motivation and no prima facie case of obviousness. (Br.
8 7.)
9 As to claim 4 in particular, the Appellants contend that there is nothing in
10 either reference or the proposed combination of them that updates a status of a task
11 responsive to information from a tracking device. The Appellants contend that
12 although the Examiner points to several portions of Lesaint allegedly teaching such
13 an approach, none of those cited portions teach that. The Appellants admit that the
14 closest is the teaching in column 11 at lines 10-30 but they argue that does not
15 teach that the status information is based upon information from a tracking device.
16 (Br. 8.)
17 The Examiner responds that both Bergeron and Lesaint disclose assigning field
18 service workers to sites, based on priority, using remote communications.
19 Therefore, both applications are in the same field of endeavor. Lesaint further
20 discloses generating an initial schedule and updating the schedule as more and
21 more data becomes available and that the system knows whether the assigned
22 mechanic has called in and taken on the request or if the request should be assigned
23 elsewhere. On the other hand, Bergeron discloses allowing the worker to actively
24 accept or reject the assignment. (Answer 14-15.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013