Ex Parte Patullo et al - Page 25

              Appeal 2007-1315                                                                                              
              Application 09/828,437                                                                                        

         1        The Appellants separately argue claims 4 and 16 together, which call for name,                            
         2    date, location, and guest quantity travel parameters, and for children in hotel room                          
         3    restriction information in the printed listing.                                                               
         4        The Examiner found that Jones discloses travel parameters including                                       
         5    accommodation name, arrival date, departure date, departure location, and number                              
         6    of guests.  The Examiner further found that such an indication of whether children                            
         7    are allowed was non-functional descriptive data and that this descriptive data                                
         8    would not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of                                    
         9    patentability.  The Examiner further found the notoriety of travel services                                   
        10    providing all pertinent information, which would include any restriction regarding                            
        11    children.  (Answer 13-14).                                                                                    
        12        The Appellants contend that the combination of Jones and Among fails to                                   
        13    disclose the claim feature of the listing providing information relating to whether                           
        14    children are allowed at the named accommodation, as admitted by the Examiner.                                 
        15    The Appellants also take issue with the Examiner’s finding that the travel                                    
        16    parameter of whether children are allowed is determined to be non-functional                                  
        17    descriptive data, not functionally related to the steps or method.  (Br. 29-30).                              
        18        As we concluded above, no patentable weight is afforded the contents of the                               
        19    listing, and so these limitations will not define the claims over the art applied.  But                       
        20    even were patentable weight given to these nonfunctional descriptive material                                 
        21    limitations, Jones states that information about the hotel is provided (FF 07).  One                          
        22    of ordinary skill could implement this by providing all relevant information,                                 
        23    including all restrictions, and particularly including any regarding children, as a                           
        24    predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, to properly inform                              
        25    travelers.  As to the travel parameters recited in claim 16, these are typical of the                         

                                                            25                                                              


Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013