Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 (CCPA 1959), distinguishing Ratti. In this case, modifying Jones by substituting
2 Among’s tour travel package for Jones’ piece by piece travel package still operates
3 on the principles of both Jones and Among, and the combination produces travel
4 option listings in response to travel parameters, as needed in Jones, Among, and
5 the claimed invention.
6 Thus, we find the Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and that the Examiner
7 has shown that as to the independent claims, all of the claim limitations are found
8 in the combined teachings of Among and Jones, and that it would have been
9 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Among and Jones
10 to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
11
12 Dependent Claims
13 Application of Among and Jones to the Dependent Claims
14
14 Claims 2 and 14
15
16 The Appellants separately argue claims 2 and 14 together, which call for room
17 pricing and airfare category contents in the printed listing.
18 The Examiner found that Jones shows listing room accommodations and
19 pricing, but not with airfare categories and that Among shows individual package
20 component prices which include airline price data and hotel price data, and that
21 suboptions are generated and priced for selected travel components. The Examiner
22 concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine
23 Among’s package components with the travel planning disclosure of Jones since
24 this would have allowed the customer to see that the customer is getting a better
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013