Appeal No. 2005-0823
Application No. 10/300,895 Page 44
teach or suggest daily reporting of issued tickets to the
airlines. However, for the reasons supra, we find that it would
have been obvious to an artisan to combine the teachings of Brice
with IAH by providing users of IAH with a back-office.
From all of the above, we find that upon consideration of
all of the evidence before us, that the arguments, Declarations,
Exhibits, etc., are insufficient to overcome the strength of the
prima facie case of obviousness of the independent claims.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 12, 20,
37, 43, 48 and 56, as well as dependent claims (which stand or
fall with the independent claims, brief, page 7) 11, 62, 63, 65,
70, 71, 73, 78, 79, 81, 86, 87, 89, 94, 95, 97, 102, 103, 105,
110, 111, 113, 118, 119 and 121 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
We turn next to claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 38, 39, 50 and 51
(Groups 3 and 4; see brief, page 7). Although these claims are
listed in the brief as being in two groups, they are essentially
argued together in the brief. With respect to claims 2, 14, 38
and 50, appellant asserts (brief, page 20) that these claims
recite a rate of reporting dependent on network traffic. With
regard to claims 3, 15, 39 and 51, appellant asserts that these
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007