Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 geographic location are suitable. This implies that the mechanic would not accept
2 the assignment if either were unsuitable. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have
3 understood that in implementing Lesaint, a query as to the suitability for a job
4 should be made, and we cannot find that the Examiner erred in this rejection.
5 As to claim 15, the Appellants present no reasons for contending the rejection
6 is improper and merely disagree. Hence, we cannot conclude that the Examiner
7 erred in this rejection.
8
9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 The Examiner has shown that the combination of Lesaint and Bergeron meets
11 the claim limitations and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
12 skill in the art to have made such a combination to achieve the claimed subject
13 matter. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 10
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lesaint and Bergeron.
15 The Examiner has shown that Lesaint meets or suggests the claim limitations
16 and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have
17 applied Lesaint to achieve the claimed subject matter. Accordingly we sustain the
18 Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
19 obvious over Lesaint.
20
21 DECISION
22 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
23 • The rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
24 Lesaint and Bergeron is sustained.
22
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013