Ex Parte Mello et al - Page 21

              Appeal 2007-2240                                                                                           
              Application 09/818,016                                                                                     

         1        We first notice that neither of these limitations require generating a bill, but                       
         2    merely information related to billing.  Certainly calling in via an automated                              
         3    computer automatically generates information for billing purposes.  We further                             
         4    notice that Lesaint is, again, directed toward situations allocating tasks to a field                      
         5    force of personnel, such as ambulance or taxi drivers, a vehicle repair call-out field                     
         6    force, or a maintenance field force for a distributed system such as an electricity or                     
         7    water supply system or a telecommunications network (FF          01).  Certainly anyone                    
         8    who has ever ridden in a taxi knows that the taximeter, which is the source of the                         
         9    word “taxi,” presents an automated billing immediately, and repair and                                     
        10    maintenance staff, such as plumbers and electricians, routinely present their bill                         
        11    immediately upon completion of work.  Automation of such bill presentation is                              
        12    mere automation of a known manual process (See Leapfrog at 1163, supra.)                                   
        13    Market demand, such as the commercial need to bill for services rendered, may                              
        14    drive design trends.  (See KSR, supra).  Thus, one of ordinary skill, upon seeing                          
        15    that Lesaint was applied toward commercial services that routinely present their                           
        16    bill upon work completion, would have found similarly incorporated such billing                            
        17    to be a predictable variation of Lesaint.   Hence, we cannot find that the Examiner                        
        18    erred in this rejection.                                                                                   
        19        As to claim 13, the Appellants contend that there is no discussion within the                          
        20    document of giving the mechanic the freedom to accept or decline an assignment.                            
        21    As the Examiner found, Lesaint suggests determining whether the mechanic                                   
        22    accepts an assignment of a special service request (Lesaint, col. 5, ll. 15-35,                            
        23    wherein the system determines whether the assigned mechanic has called in or if                            
        24    the request should be assigned elsewhere).  (FF 05.)  This portion of Lesaint goes                         
        25    on to state that the mechanic is queried as to whether his technical skills and                            


                                                           21                                                            


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013