Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 Therefore, the Examiner concludes that since Lesaint considers a technician's
2 preferred work area and ability to complete the task (i.e. are they available, have
3 they checked in, are they absent/taking leave), and iteratively updates schedules of
4 mechanics as new information becomes available, it would have been obvious to
5 one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the field
6 mechanic of Lesaint to accept or reject a communicated task, as is done by field
7 engineers in Bergeron, in order to more efficiently produce schedules. (Answer 14-
8 15).
9 With respect to the obviousness rejection over Lesaint alone, the Examiner
10 finds that Lesaint shows those teachings similarly found regarding the obviousness
11 rejection over Lesaint and Bergeron, supra., and also that the claim element of an
12 elevator mechanic is a field of use limitation in the preamble having no structural
13 limitation on the claim. The Examiner also takes official notice of the notoriety of
14 billing for commercial services rendered, such as those services taught in Lesaint.
15 (Answer 9-10.)
16 The Appellants contend that
17 • With respect to claims 12, the Examiner properly acknowledges that Lesaint,
18 et al. is void of any discussion of billing. To add an all-new feature "by
19 programming the system of Lesaint, et al. to generate the bill at the time
20 service is rendered" as suggested by the Examiner, comes purely from the
21 suggestion of Applicant's teachings. Billing information will not in any way
22 enhance the scheduling efficiency of Lesaint’s algorithm and, therefore,
23 provides no benefit to that system. (Br. 9.)
24 • With respect to claim 13,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013