Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 discount by booking flights and accommodations together in a package as opposed
2 to making several independent reservations. (Answer 12-13).
3 The Appellants contend that Among teaches that the server compiles the
4 suboption prices, and then returns a lowest priced option (although several lowest
5 price options might be returned). Therefore, a complete package price is returned;
6 not a breakdown of individual package component prices (Br. 28-29).
7 As we concluded above, no patentable weight is afforded the contents of the
8 listing, and so these limitations will not define the claims over the art applied. But
9 even were patentable weight given to these nonfunctional descriptive material
10 limitations, Among states that it gives the potential buyer the ability to instantly
11 mix and match suboptions for various components, and then easily mix and match
12 additional suboptions for other components to compare price conveniently (FF 11).
13 Jones shows listing room information (07) and one or more airfare category fares
14 (FF 05). Clearly mixing and matching Jones’ fares according to Among would
15 arrive at the claimed combination, which one of ordinary skill could implement as
16 a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so.
17 Therefore, we find the Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
18 The Appellants have not separately argued claims 3 and 11, which depend
19 from claim 2, and claims 15 and 23, which depend from claim 14, and they are
20 therefore treated as part of this group.
21
22 Claims 4 and 16
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013