Amadeus S.A.S.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2021

2020003374 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/591,309 05/10/2017 Joel Cordesses PT1327US00 1065
132326 7590 08/04/2021
Thompson Hine LLP
10050 Innovation Drive
Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45342-4934
EXAMINER
LE, HUNG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocket@thompsonhine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL CORDESSES
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10–12, and 17. The
Examiner indicates that claims 3, 6–9 and 13–16 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Amadeus
S.A.S. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claimed subject matter is directed to “IMAGE-BASED
SEMANTIC ACCOMMODATION SEARCH.” See Spec. (Title). In
particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate
to “apparatus, systems, methods, and computer program products for
extracting semantic data from images related to travel accommodation, as
well as systems, methods, and computer program for performing a search of
travel accommodation based on semantic input.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Exemplary Claims
Claim 11, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
Appeal (emphasis added to dispositive prior-art limitation):
11. A method comprising:
querying, for each of a plurality of travel
accommodations, at least one data source comprising images
associated with the travel accommodation in order to collect at
least one image related to the travel accommodation;
processing the at least one image so as to extract an
identifying characteristic of the travel accommodation based on
features depicted within the at least one image;
converting the identifying characteristic to text;
correlating the text to at least one searchable text
keyword using a thesaurus; and storing, for the at least one
searchable text keyword, an association between the travel

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Sept. 19, 2019); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 1, 2020); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 10, 2020); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed May 10, 2019); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
May 10, 2017).
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

3
accommodation, the at least one image related to the
travel accommodation, and the text converted from the
identifying characteristic of the travel accommodation in a
database.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Takata et al. (“Takata”) US 2010/0250601 Al Sept. 30, 2010
Moore, Jr. (“Moore”) US 2015/0057837 Al Feb. 26, 2015
Zhang US 2017/0103351 Al Apr. 13, 2017
REJECTIONS3
R1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10–12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang and Takata.
Final Act. 3.
R2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Zhang, Takata, and Moore. Final
Act. 5.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect
to claim 11 for the specific reasons discussed below. We highlight and

3 The Examiner incorrectly identifies Rejections R1 and R2 as being under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Based upon the filing date of May 10, 2017,
this application falls under the provisions of the AIA. We conclude this
oversight is harmless error.
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

4
address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 11, and 17 for
emphasis as follows.
1. § 103 Rejection R1 of Claims 1, 2, 4, 10–12, and 17
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 1–4) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Zhang and Takata is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, the step of “processing the at
least one image so as to extract an identifying characteristic of the travel
accommodation based on features depicted within the at least one image,” as
recited in claim 11?4
Principles of Law
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.

4 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a
single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

5
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007)).
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Analysis
The Examiner initially finds “the primary reference, Zhang, US
20170103351, discloses the concept of analyzing the subsets of plurality of
images (images’ metadata) to determine traveler types and using the textual
metadata for searching purposes.” Final Act. 2 (italics added).
In response, Appellant alleges the Examiner erred with respect to
independent claim 115 because Zhang’s disclosure is deficient in providing a
teaching or suggestion of “processing images related to a travel
accommodation to extract an identifying characteristic of the travel
accommodation.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added).

5 We find this argument is equally applicable to independent claims 1
and 17 in this respect because of the commensurate scope of the limitations
of these claims.
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

6
In the Answer, the Examiner takes a different position than in the
Final Office Action and provides a new construction of the phrase “travel
accommodation” in which “‘Travel accommodation’ can be reasonably
interpreted as comprising travel itineraries, travel types and inventory
offerings; in other words, travel accommodations are anything that assist a
person’s travel, such as location, GPS coordination, names of shops or
restaurants and so on.”
Even assuming the Examiner’s new, broad construction of “travel
accommodation” in the Answer is reasonable in light of the Specification
(see Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054), we find Zhang still does not teach or suggest
processing images related to such a broad interpretation of “travel
accommodation.”
With respect to claim 11, Appellant argues:
For example, Zhang describes traveler types as
“correspond[ing] to psychographic classifications of potential
travellers [sic] based on the personality, values, opinions,
attitudes, interest and style traits of the individual.” Zhang, at
¶ [0062]. Various traveler types disclosed by Zhang include:
“Cultural Explorer, Cultural History Buff, Free Spirit, Gentle
Explorer, No-hassle Traveller, Personal History Explorer,
Rejuvenator, Virtual Traveller, and Authentic Experiencer.” Id.
That is, Zhang’s traveler types are intangible traits of potential
travelers. In contrast, the claimed invention features “an
identifying characteristic of the travel accommodation”.
Intangible traits of potential travelers are not travel
accommodation characteristics.
Also, Figure 3 of Zhang depicts example images
associated with traveler types. Those example images include
an image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Zhang, at FIG. 3
(designator 150b). As discussed above, Zhang’s traveler types
are intangible traits (e.g., personality and interests) of potential
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

7
travelers. By virtue of being intangible, features of such traits of
potential travelers cannot be depicted in an image. Instead,
Zhang uses images that represent those intangible traits of
potential travelers. See e.g., Id., at ¶ [0063]. Stated differently,
Zhang’s images are associated with intangible traits of
potential travelers (i.e., traveler types). This lies in stark
contrast to the claimed “image” that is associated with travel
accommodations. . . . Therefore, if Zhang’s images associated
with traveler types purportedly read on the claimed “at least one
image”, as the current rejection alleges (a point not conceded),
the disclosure of Zhang pertaining to analyzing images
associated with traveler types to determine traveler types lacks
any relevancy to the claimed “processing” feature.
Appeal Br. 9–10 (emphasis added).
We find Zhang discloses:
The system includes one or more databases storing a plurality
of traveller [sic] types; a plurality of travel itineraries, wherein
each of the plurality of travel itineraries is associated with at
least one of the plurality of traveller types; and a plurality of
images, wherein each of the plurality of images is associated
with at least one of the plurality of traveller types.
Zhang ¶ 8 (emphasis added).
[T]he method includes the steps of: identifying a plurality
of images stored in one or more databases, each of the plurality
of images associated with at least one of a plurality of traveller
types; identifying a subset of the plurality of images; receiving
input selecting an image of the subset of images; determining,
from the one or more databases, the at least one traveller type
associated with the selected image.
Zhang ¶ 18 (emphasis added).
For example, in some embodiments, the itinerary database 142,
inventory database 144, and accounts database 146 may be
combined together into one database that stores the itinerary
information 152, inventory offerings 154 and the account
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

8
information 156. In such embodiment, the image database 140
storing images 150 that are associated with traveller types 158
may be provided as a separate database that can be populated
with additional categorized images from third-party image
suppliers, for example.
Zhang ¶ 69 (emphasis added).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because images stored
and analyzed in Zhang are disclosed as relating to traveler types, and not a
“travel accommodation,” even assuming the Examiner’s new, broad
construction of that term is reasonable in light of the Specification.
Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Zhang and Takata teaches or suggests the dispositive
limitation “processing the at least one image so as to extract an identifying
characteristic of the travel accommodation based on features depicted within
the at least one image,” as recited in claim 11, and as commensurately
recited in independent system claim 1 and independent computer program
product claim 17.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior
art combination to teach or suggest the dispositive limitation of claims 1, 11,
and 17, such that we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion
of obviousness. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
Rejection R1 of independent claims 1, 11, and 17, and dependent claims 2,
4, and 10–12, which are rejected on the same basis claims 1 and 11, and
which depend therefrom.
Appeal 2020-003374
Application 15/591,309

9
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claim 5
In light of our reversal of the rejection of independent claims 1, supra,
we also reverse obviousness Rejection R2 under § 103 of claim 5, which
depends from claim 1. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the
additionally cited tertiary Moore reference overcomes the aforementioned
deficiencies with Zhang and Takata, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections.
More specifically, Appellant has persuasively argued that the
Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R1 and R2 of claims
1, 2, 4, 5, 10–12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 10–
12, 17 103 Zhang, Takata
1, 2, 4, 10–
12, 17
5 103 Zhang, Takata, Moore 5
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 5,
10–12, 17
REVERSED