Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 in and taken on the request or if the request should be assigned elsewhere.
2 (Answer 17.)
3 Thus, the issues pertinent to this appeal are
4 • Whether the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
5 obvious over Lesaint and Bergeron is proper. In particular, whether it is
6 proper to combine the references and whether Lesaint does show updating a
7 status of a task responsive to information from a tracking device.
8 • Whether the rejection of claims 12-16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
9 as obvious over Lesaint is proper. In particular, whether the claimed subject
10 matter of billing, providing information, and accepting an assignment are
11 shown or are otherwise obvious to add to Lesaint.
12
13 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
14 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF), supported by substantial
15 evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
16 Lesaint
17 01. Lesaint is directed toward optimizing the allocation of a plurality of
18 resources to a plurality of tasks, and is particularly suited for use in
19 situations where the availability of resources, and the tasks to be
20 performed, both change dynamically. An example of such a situation is
21 the allocation of tasks to a field force of personnel, for example
22 ambulance or taxi drivers, a vehicle repair call-out field force, or a
23 maintenance field force for a distributed system such as an electricity or
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013