Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 ANALYSIS
2 Claims 1-12 and 25-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lynch.
3 The dispositive issue in this rejection is whether Lynch discloses the claim
4 feature of determining whether the user is a direct customer or a travel agent.
5 The Examiner found that Lynch discloses a reservation system for making
6 travel arrangements upon request by a user, and that it has a means for determining
7 whether the user is a direct customer or a travel agent in Figure 1’s Decision
8 Engine (16) and Fig. 3’s process (106) “DETERMINE TRAVELER, BUSINESS
9 ENTITY AND AGENCY ASSOCIATIONS” and its related description (Lynch,
10 col. 5, ll. 31-35). (Answer 4-5.)
11 The Appellants contend that Lynch does not disclose the claim feature of
12 means for determining whether the user is a direct customer or a travel agent. They
13 argue that nowhere does Lynch ever state that the system determines whether the
14 user is a direct customer or a travel agency. Instead, they argue that Lynch's
15 system presumes that the traveler is associated with a business entity. (Br. 13.)
16 The Examiner argues (1) that the result of this determination is not used within
17 the claim (Answer 26), (2) that Lynch discloses a means for determining whether
18 the user is a direct customer or a travel agent as the Examiner found, supra,
19 (Answer 27-28), and (3) that given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the
20 determination of whether a user is a travel agent or a direct customer is a
21 determination of the identity of the user (Answer 38).
22 The Examiner’s first argument is irrelevant in a rejection under anticipation.
23 Each structural element in a system claim must be shown within the applied art to
24 establish anticipation. A system element that causes a determination is structural
25 because it is an element that the data must pass through and be executed upon.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013