Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2008

09834156 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JEROME CHEN,
ROBERT JAY GABANNY,
and NARENDRA GOYAL
__________

Appeal No. 2007-1456
Application No. 09/834,156
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: February 29, 2008
__________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Chen, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16-25, and 28-43. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b) (2002).

Appeal 2007-1456 Page 2
Application 09/834,156

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.1
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a travel management system utilizing multiple
computer reservation systems (CRS).
Claims 1 and 9 are illustrative of the invention claimed:

1. A method for making travel related bookings, comprising:
providing access to a plurality of computer reservation systems
(CRSs) for a client
initiating a travel booking request;
allowing the client to book at least one travel item segment from
any one of the accessible CRSs; and
generating a travel itinerary booking record including information
associated with at least one booked travel item segment and information
identifying each CRS for a respective booked travel item segment,
wherein at least one of the providing, allowing, and generating steps is
performed by a data processing system.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the predefined selection of the plurality
of CRSs includes a default CRS or a primary CRS and at least one
secondary CRS.

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed May 16, 2006), the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Aug. 2, 2006),
and to the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 14, 2006).
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 3
Application 09/834,156

THE REJECTIONS

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:

Flake
Jafri
US 5,832,451
US 5,832,454
Nov. 3, 1998
Nov. 3, 1998

The following rejections are before us for review:

• Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12-14, 16-17, 24-25, 28-31 and 41-42 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flake.

• Claims 9-11, 18-23, 32-40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Flake and Jafri.

ISSUES

The first issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12-14, 16-17, 24-25, 28-31 and 41-42
as unpatentable over Flake.
The second issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-11, 18-23, 32-40 and 43 as unpatentable over
Flake and Jafri.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Office).
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 4
Application 09/834,156

Claim construction
1. “The term CRS [computer reservation system] generally denotes GDSs
[global distribution systems] and direct connect CRSs. A GDS is a set of
internally networked databases, and the business logic that ties them
together, for the primary purpose of managing the sale of airline, car
rental, and hotel inventories.” (Specification 1:12-16).
2. With respect to the limitation “generating a travel itinerary booking
record including information associated with at least one booked travel
item segment and information identifying each CRS for a respective
booked travel item segment, wherein at least one of the providing,
allowing, and generating steps is performed by a data processing system”
in claim 1 (and with respect to similar language in the other independent
claims 12, 24, and 41), the phrase “generating a travel itinerary record”
involves storing data in a database. (See Specification 25:19) (e.g.,
Oracle database). It is a database record.
3. The phrase “information associated with at least one booked travel item
segment” refers to information about a travel itinerary. (See
Specification, 25:6-16): “The air segment data 820 can include the name
of the airline 822, the data and time of the flight 824 … .”
4. Information about a travel itinerary, such as the name of an airline, is
non-functional descriptive material.
5. The phrase “information identifying each CRS for a respective booked
travel item segment” refers to information about the CRS on whom the
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 5
Application 09/834,156

travel booking is made. (See Specification 25:11): “super PNR data
related to the CSR 836.”
6. Information about a CRS on whom the travel booking is made, such as its
name, is non-functional descriptive material.
7. PNRs are “store[d] individual travel booking records in database records
called passenger name records (PNRs). These records store the
customer’s personal information and individual reservation summaries
for each airline reservation segment, car rental segment, and hotel
segment contained in the booking. The summaries include a reference to
the actual location of the inventory held by the segment. The segment
source can be located in another part of the GDS or externally at another
system on the network. The PNR establishes and maintains the
relationship of the segments to each other to form a single integrated trip,
or booking record. Business logic built into the GDS manages the
individual PNR travel item segments to ensure that a booking change to
one or more segments results in an update to every segment.”
(Specification 11-21).
8. The “allowing” and the “providing” and “allowing” steps of claim 1 do
not limit the accessing of each different CRS on the same terminal but
rather the claim is broad enough to allow access of each different CRS on
respective different terminals.
The scope and content of the prior art
9. The Examiner found that Flake shows all the claimed elements/steps but
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 6
Application 09/834,156

for generating a travel itinerary booking record including information
associated with at least one booked travel item segment and information
identifying each CRS for a respective booked travel item segment.
(Answer 4).
10. Flake is directed to an automated travel service management information
system.
11. Flake teaches storing information about a travel booking in a database.
(See col. 2, ll. 26-29): “travel service information from a plurality of
computer reservation systems is stored and readily available in a single
database format.”
12. Flake discloses obtaining travel information from different CRSs. (See
Fig. 1).
13. The Examiner took official notice that “it is old and well known to
document and record information associated with travel items so as to
have the information available if the information is needed.” (Answer 4).
14. Recording information, i.e., entering data, into a database is well known
in the art.
15. For those claims rejected over Flake and Jafri, Jafri is applied to show a
predefined selection of a plurality of CRSs including a default CRS or a
primary and secondary CRS, which the Examiner states Flake does not
show. (Answer 7-8).
16. Jafri suggests using different CRSs. (See Fig. 2).
The level of skill in the art
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 7
Application 09/834,156

17. Neither the Examiner nor Appellants have addressed the level of ordinary
skill in the pertinent arts of computer reservation systems. As such, we
will therefore consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of
ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d. 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill
in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself
reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”)
(Quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d
158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Secondary considerations
18. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim construction
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in
patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving
claims their broadest reasonable construction “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).
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 8
Application 09/834,156

subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including
(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in
Graham further noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized
to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter
sought to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 18.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argued2 the claims in accordance with the following groups:
• claims 1, 12, and 24 (Appeal Br. 8-14);
o claims 2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 25, 28-30, 36, 38; and 40
are not separately argued but since they depend on these claims
they will be included in this group;

2 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 9
Application 09/834,156

• claim 41 (Appeal Br. 14-16);
o claims 42-43 are not separately argued but since they depend on
these claims they will be included in this group;
• claims 8, 19, and 31(Appeal Br. 16-17);
o claims 21-23 and 33-34 are not separately argued but since they
depend on these claims they will be included in this group;
• claims 9, 20, and 32 (Appeal Br. 17);
• claim 18 (Appeal Br. 17-18); and,
• claims 35, 37, and 39 (Appeal Br. 18-19).

I. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, 24-25, 28-30, 38; and 40
The Appellants group claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, 24-25, 28-30, 38; and
40 as a group (see supra). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this
group with respect to the rejection over Flake alone and claim 10 with respect to
the rejection over Flake and Jafri, and the remaining claims 2, 5-7, 12-14, 16-17,
24-25, and 28-30; and, 11, 36, 38, and 40 stand or fall with claims 1 and 10,
respectively. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

a. The § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12-14, 16-17, 24-25, and 28-30 over
Flake.
The issue is whether Flake discloses the subject matter of the step
“generating a travel itinerary booking record including information associated with
at least one booked travel item segment and information identifying each CRS for
a respective booked travel item segment, wherein at least one of the providing,
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 10
Application 09/834,156

allowing, and generating steps is performed by a data processing system” in claim
1.
Given the meanings that the Specification gives to the terms in this step of
the claim (FF 1-7), the broadest reasonable construction of this step in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art is that it
encompasses generating a database record to include two pieces of information –
i.e., one a travel item (i.e., a flight number) and the other the CRS that provided the
travel item (e.g., a name of the CRS). These types of information, which simply
describe things, are nonfunctional descriptive material. See Ex parte Mathias
(BPAI 2005) (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd051851.pdf ).
Since we construe the “information associated with at least one booked
travel item segment” and “information identifying each CRS for a respective
booked travel item segment” of claim 1 as nonfunctional descriptive material, we
agree with the Examiner assessment of this limitation. (See Answer 4).
The Appellants argue that this “information” can not be characterized as
non-functional descriptive material because the information “affects how the steps
of the claims are performed.” (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded by this
argument. We are unable to see how the steps of the method are affected by the
type of information that is stored in the database. Claim 1 does not call for
generating a data segment but rather generating information associated with a
travel segment. Accordingly, claim 1 covers entering a word or label to describe
the travel segment into a database. The Appellants argue that the claimed
information is “in sharp contrast to the steps of storing data in which the type of
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 11
Application 09/834,156

data being stored does not affect how the step is performed, and the data is
properly considered non-functional descriptive material.” However, that (data
which does not affect how the step is performed) is precisely what the claim
encompasses when it is given the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. The
information to which the claim refers (e.g., a flight number) is “content of
information resident in a database [and not] data structures impos[ing] a physical
organization on the data.” In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Notwithstanding that the claimed information is non-functional descriptive
material, we also agree with the Examiner it is well known in the art to record
information. (FF 13). It is well known to enter data to store it in a database. (FF
14). Evidence that this is well known can be found in Flake which teaches storing
travel data in a database. (FF 11). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by the
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary. (See App. Br. 13).
The Appellants also argue that Flake teaches away from including
“information identifying each CRS for a respective booked travel item segment”
(App. Br. 13). We are not persuaded by this argument. Given that Flake teaches
storing information about a travel booking in a database, one of ordinary skill in
the art would foresee storing any type of information corresponding to the booking.
One type of information corresponding to a booking that is well known to those in
the travel industry is information about where the booking took place or other
information documenting the source.
The Appellants argued that they traversed the Examiner’s finding that it is
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 12
Application 09/834,156

well known to record information associated with travel items (App. Br. 11).
However, the Appellants did not describe why the noticed fact is not considered to
be common knowledge or well-known in the art, particularly in light of Flakes’s
reference to related documents (see col. 17, ll. 8-10), which would certainly
include a travel itinerary.

b. The § 103 rejection of claims 10-11, 36, 38, and 40 over Flake in view of
Jafri.
The Appellants’ discussion of Jafri is directed only to claims 1, 12 and 24
but these claims were not rejected over Jafri. (App. Br. 14). Nonetheless, the
Appellants argue that Jafri “shares similar shortcomings as Flake.” (App. Br. 14).
Accordingly, for the same reasons we discussed above, we are not persuaded that
the Appellants have shown error in the rejection of these claims over Flake and
Jafri.

II. Claims 41-43
The Appellant groups claims 41-43 as a group (see supra). We select claim
41 as the representative claim for this group with respect to the rejection over
Flake alone and the remaining claim 42 stands or falls with claim 41. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

a. The § 103 rejection of claims 41-42 over Flake.
The Appellants argue that Flake fails to show generating a booking
record that includes information associated with a plurality of booked travel item
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 13
Application 09/834,156

segments … associated with different CRSs. (See claim 41). According to
Appellants, Flake shows information derived from a single CRS. (App. Br. 14-16).
We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree with the Examiner
(Answer 27) that Flake suggests obtaining travel information from different CRSs.
In fact, this is clearly shown in Fig. 1. (FF 12).

b. The § 103 rejection of claim 43 over Flake in view of Jafri.
The Appellants’ discussion of Jafri is directly only to claim 41, which was not
rejected over Jafri. (App. Br. 15). Nonetheless, we observe that, like Flake, Jafri
(Fig. 2) also suggests using different CRSs. (FF 16).

III. Claims 8, 19, 21-23, 31, and 33-34
The Appellants group claims 8, 19, 21-23, 31, and 33-34 as a group (see
supra). We select claim 8 as the representative claim for this group with respect to
the rejection over Flake alone and claim 19 with respect to the rejection over Flake
and Jafri, and the remaining claims 31; and, 19, 21-23, and 33-34 stand or fall with
claims 8 and 19, respectively. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

a. The § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 31 over Flake.
Claim 8 call for accessing CSRs and involving the reading of a plurality of
CRSs while booking, as well as accessing a plurality of CRSs to check availability
of travel items.
The Examiner has argued that this is suggested in Flake at Figs. 1, and 7-9,
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 14
Application 09/834,156

which show accessing CRSs from a single travel agency. (Answer 38)
The Appellants argued that Flake prompts a travel agent to determine
whether a vendor should be contacted to complete a transaction and that such
access to vendors is different from the claimed access to CSRs. The Appellants
further argue that Flake does not show that the agent accesses the CSR for
availability. (App. Br. 16-17).
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument for the simple reason that
claim 8 does not limit the entity accessing the CRS. Nothing in the claim
precludes a vendor from accessing an CRS.

b. The § 103 rejection of claims 19, 21-23, and 33-34 over Flake in view of
Jafri.
The Appellants’ criticize Jafri because it “share[s] similar shortcomings
as Flake.” (App. Br. 17). Accordingly, for the same reasons we discussed above,
we are not persuaded that the Appellants have shown error in the rejection of these
claims over Flake and Jafri.

IV. The § 103 rejection of claims 9, 20, and 32 over Flake in view of Jafri.
The Appellants argue claims 9, 20, and 32 as a group (see supra). We select
claim 9 as the representative claim for this group and the remaining claims 20 and
32 stand or fall with claim 9. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Claim 9 further limits the predefined selection of CSRs of claim 8 to include
a default CSR or a primary and at least one secondary CSR. Claims 20 and 32 are
likewise so limiting.
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 15
Application 09/834,156

The Examiner argues that
Figure 3 of Jafri discloses segment reservation request. Jafri discloses
that the Gateway files include files for establishing links to various
CRSs (col. 4, lines 24-25). Connections to a CRS are referred to as
Terminal Addresses or TAs. Looking at Figure 3, TA1 is one CRS,
TA2 is another CRS and TA3 is a third CRS. As set forth in Jafri,
lines 1, 3, and 4 are selected to flights on United Airlines (UA), Delta
Airlines (DL) and TransWorld Airlines(TW), respectively. In order to
obtain the best fares, the node thereafter attempts to complete
Itinerary 1 on United using TA1, Itinerary 2 on Delta Airlines using
TA2, and Itinerary 3 on TransWorld Airline using TA3. Jafri discloses
that the foregoing process is repeated for the second segment of the
desired trip. Again three different flights are selected, giving
preference in each instance to a flight on the same airline as the first
flight selected on a particular TA (col. 5, lines 31-37). Thus, the
Examiner asserts that Jafri discloses a predefined selection of CRSs
including a default CRS. The default CRS could be the automatic
processing of United Airlines first, then Delta (secondary CRS), then
TransWorld (third CRS). The default CRS could also be processing
the flights automatically giving preference in each instance to a flight
on the same airline as the first flight selected as set forth in Jafri (col.
5, lines 31-37).
(Answer 41). Emphasis added. In other words, the Examiner has construed the
claims broadly such that (a) the default CRS can be the primary CRS or (b) “an
option that is selected automatically unless some other alternative is specified.”
(Answer 40). Given this construction, the Examiner finds that Jafri’s selection
scheme, which compares results from a CRS to results from a previous CRS meets
the limitation of these claims.
Appellants argue that Jafri’s availability of preferences (e.g., pre-selected
seat class) has no correlation to a particular CRS. (App. Br. 17 and Reply Br. 8).
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 16
Application 09/834,156

We have reviewed Jafri and the claim and we find we are in agreement with
the Examiner that claim 8 is broad and places no limit on which of a plurality of
CRSs is to be designated the default CRS. Jafri’s selection scheme necessarily
involves accessing a default CRS against which the results of another CRS are
compared. Furthermore, we note that Flake, in describing the background of the
invention, (col. 1. ll. 45-64), describes the “sequential method of processing travel
requests.” This suggests it was known to access CRSs in a sequence; further
suggesting a priority arrangement of CRSs.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Appellants have shown error in the
rejection of these claims.

V. The § 103 rejection of claim 18 over Flake in view of Jafri.
Claim 18 calls for a terminal access editor (TAE) to define a selection of
the CRSs for the client to be stored in a database and accessed during the booking
request for the client.
The Examiner relies on (col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 23) of Jafri which discloses
server database files related to a CRS and used to process travel requests. (Answer
42).
We have read that passage in Jafri. We do not find there a terminal access
editor of the type claimed. We agree with the Appellants that “Jafri does not teach
or suggest that the TAs are connected to respective CRSs but, rather, are used to
connect to the CRS and generate itineraries based on a first search for flights
performed via TA1. Thus, the assignment of a TA to the CRS simply includes
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 17
Application 09/834,156

selecting one of the flights returned from the search at TA1 in order to build
second and third itineraries. Therefore, the TA of Jafri is clearly unlike the TAE of
the claimed invention where the TAE is used to define a selection of CRS for the
client to be stored in a database and accessed during the travel booking request, as
recited by Claim 18.” (Reply Br. 9).
The Examiner also argues that claim 18 defines the editor in intended use
language, adding that “Jafri is fully capable of performing the function of the TAE
claimed by appellant.” (Answer 43).
Regarding the alleged intended use language, it remains that the prior art
must show a terminal access editor to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter over the prior art. Regarding the Examiner’s
allegation that Jafri can perform the editor’s function as recited in the claim, this
appears to be a matter of speculation.
We find that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejection
this claim.

VI. The §103 rejection of claims 35, 37, and 39 over Flake in view of Jafri.
The Appellants argue claims 35, 37, and 39 as a group (see supra). We
select claim 35 as the representative claim for this group and the remaining claims
37 and 39 stand or fall with claim 35. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).
Claim 35 reads as follows:
35. The method of claim 1, wherein the information
associated with each CRS for a respective booked travel item segment
includes at least one of a name of the CRS and a CRS locator.
Appeal 2007-1456 Page 18
Application 09/834,156

The issue is whether “the information … [that] includes at least one name”
is non-functional descriptive material and thus not patentably consequential.
For reasons already discussed (see supra with respect to claim 1), we are of
the view that information associated with a segment that is entered in a database is
nonfunctional descriptive material. This is even more so here with respect to claim
35 where the information includes a “name.”
The Appellants have not shown error in the rejection.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16-17, 19-25, and 28-43.
The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18 as
unpatentable over Flake and Jafri.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16-25, and 28-43 is affirmed
in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2007-1456 Page 19
Application 09/834,156

JRG

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000