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 19Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013