Appeal No. 2005-0823
Application No. 10/300,895 Page 11
Brice et al clearly shows the ease with which batch
reporting can be changed, with a simple click of the
mouse, see figure 5 and figures 6 and 8 [which] show
Daily reports.”
Appellant asserts (brief, page 11) that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and that
even if IAH, Brice and IATA were combined, they do not teach all
of the limitations of the independent claims. It is argued
(brief, page 12) that "[t]he examiner has unfortunately fallen
prey to the trap of using a hindsight view of the invention to
oversimplify the problem faced and the solution to it."
Appellant asserts (brief, page 13) that “the invention lies, not
just in the solution, but also his discovery of a problem that no
one else in the industry appreciated. The inventor realized that
weekly reporting cost the airlines a huge source of revenue.”
Appellant adds (id.) that "[e]ven a simple solution is entitled
to patent protection if it results from the discovery of a
hitherto unknown defect," and that "if generating over $1 billion
of new revenue annually was so obvious from the prior art,
certainly the airlines would have done it before the invention.
But they did not."
With respect to the applied prior art, appellant asserts
(brief, page 14) that IAH discloses ARC's practice of weekly
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007