Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 even were patentable weight given to the nonfunctional descriptive material
2 limitations, Among describes its listing of only available data for the purpose of
3 being timely (FF 13). One of ordinary skill could have implemented this by also
4 providing options irrespective of availability as a predictable variation, and would
5 see the benefit of doing so, for travelers for whom cost was more important than
6 timeliness.
7 Therefore, we find the Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
8
9 Claims 7 and 19
10 The Appellants separately argue claims 7 and 19 together, which call for
11 determining seating availability after selecting the travel arrangement.
12 The Examiner found that Jones discloses accessing an associated computer
13 network to determine the availability of seating after selection of a listed travel
14 arrangement (Jones, ¶ [0044]-[0045]). (Answer 16.)
15 The Appellants contend that the combination of Jones and Among fails to
16 disclose this feature (Br. 31).
17 Jones displays seat alternatives for the available flights, which must be selected
18 first (FF 06). Thus, after selecting an available flight as a travel arrangement, seat
19 availability is shown for determination.
20 Therefore, we find the Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
21 The Appellants have not separately argued claims 8-10, which depend from
22 claim 7, and claims 20-22, which depend from claim 19, and we treat them as part
23 of this group.
27
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013