Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 from the references themselves for combining Jones with Among. They also
2 contend that the stated motivation would not lead to Appellants' claimed invention
3 because the proposed modification would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its
4 intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of a reference (Br.
5 24).
6
7 Automation of a Known Process
8
9 We initially note that the subject matter of the independent claims 1, 13, and 28
10 are for the combination of first determining whether one who books arrangements
11 is a traveler or a travel agent and then automating the solicitation of travel
12 preferences and the provision of travel pricing information that any traveler would
13 likely require. In any manual procedure existing at the time of the invention, one
14 of ordinary skill would have known that a travel service provider had to ascertain
15 whether a party the provider was in communication with would be charging a
16 commission or not, i.e., whether the party was an agent who charged a
17 commission, because of the prevailing industry practice of paying commissions to
18 travel agents.
19 It is generally obvious to automate a known manual procedure or mechanical
20 device, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
21 combine an old device or procedure with electronic circuitry to update it using
22 modern electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood benefits
23 of such adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified
24 operation, and reduced cost. The combination of automation and the usual queries
25 and responses of travel service providers is thus the adaptation of an old idea or
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013