Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in
2 the art. See Leapfrog, supra.
3
4 Jones and Among
5 Unlike Lynch, Among does determine whether the user is a travel agent or
6 direct user. Among explicitly states that a confirmation message (e.g., email) is
7 also sent to any travel agent that booked the package or suboptions of the final
8 option (FF 14). Thus, we find that Among determines whether the user is a travel
9 agent or a direct user.
10 As to the Appellants’ contention that there is no motivation to combine Among
11 and Jones, Jones is directed toward processing travel requests based on a user's
12 travel destination goal (FF 03) and Among is directed toward managing a tour
13 product purchase (FF 10). The teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit
14 from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references, see
15 Kahn, supra. As the Examiner concluded, by identifying the user, Jones can
16 access special pricing information, any incentives, and commission payments that
17 may be available to the user, thus affecting the price of any reservation, and also
18 allows for tracing of sales by an individual or by an entity and aids travel agents in
19 managing commission payments.
20 The Appellants’ argument as to why the combination of Among and Jones
21 would be unsuitable is that in such a combination the travel agent’s itinerary, as
22 opposed to the user’s itinerary, would be entered (Br. 25). This is simply not a
23 credible argument. Clearly, when a travel agent is a user of a system, the travel
24 agent is going to enter the itinerary of the client, not a fictitious travel agent
25 itinerary.
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013