Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 commission. The arrangements would have to be confirmed before the entire
2 package was finally assembled, since any unavailability resulting from lack of
3 confirmation would destroy the package’s coherence, and thus payment would be
4 deferred until after confirmation. Thus, these claim limitations are a predictable
5 variation of Among, to which a person of ordinary skill would have seen the
6 benefits.
7 Therefore, we find the Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
8
9 Claims 26 and 27
10 The Appellants separately argue claims 26 and 27, which call for getting
11 information from a reservation system in which a polling computer transfers
12 information to a central reservation system and a flight data server.
13 The Examiner found that Jones discloses a system with a first data processing
14 system, a database for storing a plurality of travel arrangements, a polling
15 computer for transferring data to a central reservation system, and a flight data
16 server, and that the travel system includes an air transportation subsystem (Answer
17 18).
18 The Appellants contend that the combination of Jones and Among fails to
19 disclose the claim features (Br. 32).
20 Jones describes polling from a computer, which transfers information to a
21 central reservation system and a flight data server (FF 04).
22 Thus we find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
23
29
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013