Appeal No. 2004-1421
Application No. 09/471,674
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Flake et al. (Flake) 5,832,451 Nov. 3, 1998
Robertson 6,269,369 Jul. 31, 2001
Vance et al. (Vance) 6,442,526 Aug. 27, 2002
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8 through 13, 16 and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flake in view of
Robertson and Vance.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with respect to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed January 15, 2004) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
16, filed October 30, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed
March 8, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
1(...continued)
actually read that --- the second data link of a given computer
[or given travel service provider computer] being disposed to
transmit a first travel preparation message to said message
receiving device---. Correction of this error should be made in
any further prosecution of the application before the examiner.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007