Appeal 2006-3154
Application 09/865,799
an equipment type preference factor. Thus the combination of the two
references fails to disclose an equipment type preference factor.
The Examiner admits (Answer 4), and we agree, that Ahlstrom does
not disclose a fixed optimal value of the travel index. Bunyan (col. 4, ll. 39-
54) discloses expressing a suitability rating of a particular holiday (or
vacation) as a percentage on a scale of 0% (totally unsuitable) to 100%
(totally suitable). The Examiner asserts (Answer 7) that a value of 100% is
the optimal value. However, Bunyan discloses (col. 3, l. 59-col. 4, l. 4) that
"[i]f a customer has specified a positive or negative preference for a regional
location, a weighting based on their strength of opinion is added to the
overall suitability of the holiday." Thus, arguably preference factors are
added or subtracted from an "overall suitability." The overall suitability
would then correspond to the fixed optimal value of claim 6. However,
Bunyan discloses (col. 4, ll. 39-42) that the suitability rating may be
normalized to a scale of 0 to 100% to simplify the format for presentation to
the customer. The preference factors are not added to or subtracted from the
normalized rating. Therefore, the 100% suitability rating does not satisfy the
claimed fixed optimal value to and from which preference factors are added
and subtracted, respectively. Thus, as neither Ahlstrom nor Bunyan
discloses or suggests a fixed optimal value, the combination of the two
references cannot disclose or suggest the fixed optimal value.
The Examiner admits (Answer 4), and we agree, that Ahlstrom fails to
teach a threshold value that the travel index must surpass to be presented to
the user. The portion of Bunyan relied upon by the Examiner for the
claimed threshold value states (col. 4, ll. 49-52) that "[i]f there are more than
a specified number of suitable holidays, the customer is able to sort or filter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013