Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 19

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1        The Appellants have argued claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 together.  Accordingly, we                           
         2    select claim 1 as a representative claim.                                                                  
         3        We first note that there is no contention that any of the claim elements are not                       
         4    met by the combined teachings of Lesaint and Bergeron (FF 06).  We further note                            
         5    that the broadest claims are directed toward automation of the well known                                  
         6    activities of planning, informing, communicating, providing feedback, and billing                          
         7    for tasks.  One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine                        
         8    an old combination of basic commercial tasks with programmed electronic                                    
         9    circuitry to update it using modern electronic components in order to gain the                             
        10    commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as decreased size,                                   
        11    increased reliability, simplified operation, and reduced cost.  The combination is                         
        12    thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is                             
        13    commonly available and understood in the art. (See Leapfrog supra).                                        
        14        The Appellants first argue that there is no reason to combine Lesaint and                              
        15    Bergeron.  Both Lesaint and Bergeron are directed toward the application of                                
        16    resources, particularly human resources such as a field force, toward tasks.  Lesaint                      
        17    is directed toward the optimizing the overall allocation (FF 01), whereas Bergeron                         
        18    is directed toward applying the best resources to spontaneous events signaled by                           
        19    some alarm (FF 08).  Thus, Bergeron is directed toward the handling of discrete                            
        20    specialized events within the overall allocation optimization sought by Lesaint, and                       
        21    one of ordinary skill would have sought Bergeron to accomplish that after working                          
        22    with Lesaint.                                                                                              
        23        The Appellants next argue that Bergeron does not provide any benefit to                                
        24    Lesaint because it does not make that system any more efficient to reach its                               
        25    intended objectives, and, in fact, it appears at least somewhat contrary to the                            

                                                           19                                                            


Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013