Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2 We find that the Appellants are correct that Lynch does not show determining
3 whether the user is a direct customer or a travel agent. This limitation is present in
4 all of claims 1-12 and 25-27. Thus, we conclude that Lynch does not anticipate
5 any of claims 1-12 and 25-27. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner's
6 rejection of claims 1-12 and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
7 Lynch.
8 We find that Among, unlike Lynch, does show determining whether the user is
9 a direct customer or a travel agent. Further, Jones shows the various travel
10 preferences, or parameters, that are claimed, or those that are claimed are
11 predictable variations of Jones. Similarly, Jones shows the various information
12 included in the claimed listings or the claimed listing information are predictable
13 variations of Jones. Also Jones shows the polling of claims 26 and 27. We also
14 find that the Examiner is correct in the motivation to combine the teachings of
15 Jones and Among. Therefore, we find that the claimed subject matter of all the
16 claims are obvious over the combined teachings of Among and Jones.
17 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. §
18 103(a) as obvious over Jones and Among.
19
20 DECISION
21 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
22 • The rejection of claims 1-12 and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
23 anticipated by Lynch is not sustained.
30
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013