Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 The Examiner’s second argument is unpersuasive. Lynch determines the
2 identity of the traveler, the business entity which employs the traveler (if
3 applicable), and the travel agency of which the individual is a customer (if
4 applicable) (FF 02). While this teaching explicitly states that the identity of these
5 three parties are determined, this does not explicitly, implicitly, or inherently state
6 that the system actually determines whether the user is a direct user or a travel
7 agent.
8 The Examiner’s third argument is not credible. Determining identity ends in a
9 textual result. Determining whether the identified entity is a direct customer or a
10 travel agent ends in a Boolean result.
11 Thus, we find that the Appellants’ arguments persuasive that Lynch does not
12 show determining whether the user is a direct customer or a travel agent.
13 This conclusion alone is sufficient to overcome a rejection under novelty, and
14 therefore the remaining arguments made by the Appellants are moot.
15
16 Claims 1-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jones and Among.
17
18 Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
19
20 All of the claims include a limitation of generating a listing and describing
21 the contents of that listing. Several of the claims also include a limitation of
22 displaying and describing the contents of the display. The contents of the listing
23 and display are all descriptive textual information or graphic images provided to a
24 traveler. None of these textual information or graphic images have any functional
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013