Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 Claims 12 and 24
2 The Appellants separately argue claims 12 and 24 together, which call for
3 generating a confirmed travel arrangement listing without receipt of payment, and
4 that the contents of the listing show amounts due net of agency commission.
5 The Examiner found that Jones discloses a method and system further
6 comprising generating a confirmed travel arrangement without receipt of payment
7 for the travel arrangement (Jones, ¶ [0056]). (Answer 17-18.) The Examiner
8 further found that, because Jones does not show a payment in Fig. 7, referred to in
9 this portion of Jones, this process is without receipt of payment (Answer 49), and
10 that the amounts shown as due by service providers would have been net of
11 commission to avoid double billing (Answer 50).
12 The Appellants contend that the combination of Jones and Among fails to
13 disclose the claim features. They contend that the Examiner-cited paragraph
14 [0056] in Jones fails to disclose generating a confirmed travel arrangement as per
15 the claim, but instead, merely discusses the use of an itinerary, which can be
16 altered by a user, and for which is provided additional information, including maps
17 and/or restaurants. (Br. 31-32.)
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 the nonfunctional descriptive material
21 limitations, Among sends confirmed arrangements to both the travel agent and
22 traveler (FF 14).
23 Since Among is creating a tour package, having the agent submit the individual
24 component payments is a predictable manner of payment. Since such payments
25 necessarily come from the agent, the amounts due would be net of the agent’s
28
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013