Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 10

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1    service industries, requiring a client to pay for the services completed by a service                      
         2    provider, such as a field technician. (Answer 16.)                                                         
         3        The Examiner concludes that since Lesaint disclosed reporting the completion                           
         4    of a service, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the                        
         5    time of the invention to automatically bill clients for the tasks performed by field                       
         6    technicians after the task is reported as completed in order to generate bills in a                        
         7    more timely manner by programming the system of Lesaint to generate the bill at                            
         8    the time service is rendered, thus allowing for quicker compensation.  (Answer 16.)                        
         9        The Examiner cites additional prior art to support this assertion, but it is not                       
        10    within the scope of the basis for the Examiner’s rejection, and therefore we will not                      
        11    consider it here.                                                                                          
        12        In regard to the contention concerning the information provision, the Examiner                         
        13    contends that Lesaint discloses providing the mechanic with information regarding                          
        14    the routine to be performed, such as instructions suggested by the system, viz. a                          
        15    remote communication occurs between the mechanic and the system, whereby the                               
        16    instructions are communicated to the mechanic.  (Answer 17.)                                               
        17        In regard to the contention concerning task acceptance, the Examiner contends                          
        18    that claim 1 and claim 13 contain different limitations.  Claim 1 requires that the                        
        19    mechanic chooses to accept the assignment and sends a communication to the base                            
        20    location indicating such a selection.  Claim 13 does not expressly recite this feature                     
        21    of choice.  Rather, claim 13 merely states a mechanic accepts (i.e., receives) an                          
        22    assignment.  Also, unlike claim 1, claim 13 recites that this acceptance is                                
        23    determined, rather than the mechanic actively communicating a chosen acceptance                            
        24    back to the system.  Therefore, with regards to claim 13, the Examiner contends                            
        25    that Lesaint discloses a system knowing whether the assigned mechanic has called                           

                                                           10                                                            


Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013