Ex Parte Patullo et al - Page 19

              Appeal 2007-1315                                                                                              
              Application 09/828,437                                                                                        

         1                              Independent Claims 1, 13, 25, and 28                                                
         2        We note that the Appellants argue claims 1 and 13 as a group.  Accordingly,                               
         3    we select claim 1 as representative of the group.  We further note that the                                   
         4    Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 28 are the same as those for claim 1 and we                             
         5    therefore include claim 28 in this group.  The Appellants have not separately                                 
         6    argued independent claim 25, or dependent claim 5 and 17, which depend from                                   
         7    claim 1 and 13, and we therefore include these claims in this group as well.                                  
         8        The Examiner found that Jones discloses a method and system for making                                    
         9    travel arrangements using a computer network that includes receiving travel                                   
        10    parameters associated with a desired travel option; generating a listing of one or                            
        11    more travel arrangements in accordance with the travel parameters including                                   
        12    pricing information associated with the travel parameters; and displaying the                                 
        13    listing of the one or more travel arrangements.  The Examiner found that Jones                                
        14    does not disclose determining whether the user is a direct customer or a travel                               
        15    agent (Answer 10-11).                                                                                         
        16        To overcome this deficiency, the Examiner found that Among discloses a step                               
        17    of determining who the user is and if a passenger is identified as qualified for                              
        18    special pricing, and automatically applying a rate if qualified and sending                                   
        19    confirmation messages to travel agent and the buyer.  The Examiner concluded that                             
        20    it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine Among with Jones                               
        21    since, by identifying the user, the travel planning method and system of Jones can                            
        22    access special pricing information and other benefits (Answer 11).                                            
        23        The Appellants contend that Among fails to disclose the claim feature of                                  
        24    determining whether the user is a direct customer or a travel agent (Br. 26-27).                              
        25    The Appellants further contend that the Examiner has shown no objective rationale                             

                                                            19                                                              


Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013