Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 intentions of Lesaint, which assumes that once an appropriate individual “reports
2 in,” or “calls in,” that individual will be assigned the task in question. But
3 Bergeron illustrates the flaw in Lesaint in that personnel may not be in a position to
4 accept a job, as well as the solution to that flaw in interrogating as to acceptance
5 (FF 09). After illustrating this flaw, Bergeron presents the solution in simply
6 asking the personnel to accept the assignment.
7 The Appellants have separately argued claim 4, arguing that neither reference
8 updates a task status responsive to information from a tracking device. As the
9 Examiner found, Lesaint’s handheld devices (Lesaint, Fig. 1) are used to track
10 status (FF 03).
11 Thus, we cannot say that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 1-8 and
12 10 over Lesaint and Bergeron.
13
14 Claims 12-16, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
15 Lesaint.
16 As to claims 12 and 20, which recite the claim limitation that “the
17 communication module automatically generates billing information regarding a
18 task completed by the mechanic” (claim 12), and “automatically generating billing
19 information regarding a task completed by the mechanic” (claim 20), the Examiner
20 takes notice of the commercial nature of the services provided in Lesaint, which
21 implies charging the client, which in turn requires billing. The Examiner
22 concludes that creating a bill promptly is simply good business practice. (Answer
23 16.) Thus, rather than the Examiner having found the suggestion for billing in the
24 Appellants’ teachings, as the Appellants argue, the Examiner simply took notice of
25 the commercial nature of Lesaint’s services.
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013