Appeal 2006-3154
Application 09/865,799
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed April 18, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed February 1, 2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 6 through 11.
OPINION
Appellant contends (Br. 9) that neither Ahlstrom nor Bunyan discloses
1) an equipment type preference factor, 2) a fixed optimal value, and 3) a
threshold value being an index value of the travel value index. The
Examiner asserts (Answer 4 and 9) that Ahlstrom discloses a preference
factor for an equipment type index in col. 11, ll. 44-46, (Answer 4 and 7-8)
that Bunyan discloses both a fixed optimal value of the travel value index
and also a threshold value for the travel value index in col. 4, ll. 39-54. The
issue, therefore, is whether the combination of Ahlstrom and Bunyan
discloses an equipment type preference factor, a fixed optimal value, and a
threshold value for the travel value index.
Ahlstrom (col. 11, ll. 44-46) discloses a particular airline preference
factor. Appellant (Specification 12: 10-11) indicates that "equipment type"
refers to the type of aircraft such as a "747 jumbo jet versus a supersonic jet
versus a propeller-driven airplane." Each airline may or may not have the
various types of equipment, but specifying a particular airline preference is
not the same as specifying an equipment type preference. None of the other
factors considered in Ahlstrom relate to equipment type. Further, Bunyan
does not discuss equipment type. Accordingly, neither reference discloses
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013