Ex Parte Harris

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12545752 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/545,752 08/21/2009
23844 7590 07/29/2016
SCOTT C HARRIS
Law Office of Scott C Harris, Inc
PO BOX 1389
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067-1389
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott C. Harris
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Travel-C2 2009
EXAMINER
HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
scott@harrises.com
schuspto@ gm ail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT C. HARRIS
Appeal2014--001901
Application 12/545,752
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Scott C. Harris (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final
rejection of claims 1-34, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented "a way of setting travel plans over a remote
information server." Specification 1: Summary.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.,"
filed May 21, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September
12, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 21, 2012).
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A system comprising:
a client computer, having a cursor moving element, and an
actuator that is actuated to select a current position of said
cursor moving element, said client computer including a
connection to a network,
said client computer running a program which produces a
graphical user interface using information received over said
connection,
said graphical user interface allowing entry of a desired starting
area for travel, and a desired ending area for said travel on an
overall map,
said program displaying information indicative of
multiple travel options between multiple points in the
selected starting area and ending area
and
prices for the multiple travel options,
wherein at least one of the selected starting area and ending
area forms a circle of a size on said overall map,
and
said program further allows and controls at least one of said
starting area or said ending area to be changed in size to form a
changed in size area
and
said information indicative of multiple travel options includes
multiple areas within said changed in size area as at least one of
the selected starting area for travel or said ending area for
travel,
where said changed in size area
2
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
and
includes a first perimeter of a first outer size at a
first time,
and
includes a second perimeter of a second outer size
different than said first outer size at a second time
different than said first time,
wherein said information that is displayed
includes changed information about said changed in size
area,
and
includes multiple options for travel between different
locations within said changed in size area forming said at
least one of the selected starting area for travel or said
ending area for travel and includes prices for the multiple
options for travel between the different locations.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Yagyu us 5,502,640 Mar. 26, 1996
Delorme '052 us 5,948,040 Sep. 7, 1999
Sehr us 6,085,976 Jul. 11, 2000
Iyengar US 6,360,205 Bl Mar. 19,2002
Offutt US 2002/0184059 Al Dec. 5, 2002
Smith US 6,578,078 B 1 Jun. 10,2003
Delorme '040 US 2003/0182052 Al Sep.25,2003
Harris US 7,263,494 Bl Aug. 28, 2007
Claims 1, 5, 8, 17, and 26 stand rejected under obviousness type double
patenting relative to the claims in Harris.
3
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
Claims 1-5, 7, 17----20, 23, 25, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, and Delorme '052.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 14--16, 26----28, 30, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and
Smith.
Claims 6, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Yagyu.
Claims 12 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith and Yagyu.
Claims 13 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Sehr.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Sehr, and Yagyu.
Claims 10 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Iyengar.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes
changing the number of hyperlinks in a map based on a changed number of
airports included within a changed area within a same size map and
describes including plural areas as contrasted with plural points such as
airports within a selected area as either a starting or ending area.
4
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Delorme '040
01. Delorme '040 is directed to allowing individuals to make travel
arrangements and to plan travel activities. More particularly, a
Travel Reservation and Information Planning Systems (TRIPS)
provides travel information and special offers for goods and
services such as accommodations and reservations associated with
such areas of interest. This results in a completely integrated
system enabling an individual to plan, review, locate, schedule
and select or execute customized or personalized travel
arrangements and activities in association with map displays or
other output of travel routes, chronological events, diverse travel
topics and geographic points of interest along such routes.
Delorme '040 1:29-47.
02. Delorme '040 describes selecting a beginning or ending airport
by clicking on a map. Delorme '040 18:58-19:8.
Delorme '052
01. Delorme '052 is directed to Integrated Routing/Mapping
Information System (IRMIS) for travel planning, travel guidance,
and recording travel locations and paths and includes the
capability to provide an interactive computer travel-planning
5
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
guide for determining a route between a user selected travel origin
and travel destination following user selected intermediate
waypoints along the way. System software determines the
preferred travel route within user selected constraints. The user
can also select among a plurality of types of geographically
locatable points of interest (PO Is) within a user-defined region of
interest along the travel route. From the user selected and user-
defined transportation routes, waypoints, and POis along the
travel route, the software constructs a user customized multimedia
travelog for preview on a computer display of the user-defined
travel route. Based on the user-customized previews, the travel
route including transportation routes, waypoints, and points of
interest can be updated or changed according to the user
preferences and choices. Modified travel routes can be previewed
with further multimedia travelogs until a satisfactory travel route
is achieved. The user can output a travel plan by downloading
waypoints electronically and/or printing out maps with route
indications and text travel directions. Delorme '052 para. 2.
02. Delorme '052 describes an operator changing the radius, and
therefore the area enclosed including perimeter of the circles
drawn around areas on a map. Delorme '052 paras. 158, 184 and
224.
03. Delorme '052 describes using the term waypoints to refer to the
origin and destination of a possible route and intermediate points
or places along the way including major road and highway
intersections, joints or turning points at connected short line
6
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
segments of major roads and highways, place names situated on
major roads and highways, and as hereafter described, POis near
the major roads and highways. Delorme '052 para. 22.
04. Delorme '052 describes an electronic map display on which
departure points, destinations and other waypoints are entered and
the shortest, fastest or otherwise optimized routes calculated.
Delorme '052 para. 47.
05. Delorme '052 describes starting mapping a route by entering
waypoints, including a starting place, a final destination and
optionally one or more mid-points or intermediate locations where
the user may stop or pass through in his or her travels. Waypoints
include departure points and destinations as well as intermediate
or mid-route waypoints. Delorme '052 para. 86, also para. 22.
Offutt
06. Offutt is directed to determining non-obvious savings in the
purchase of goods and services. Offutt para. 2.
07. Offutt describes obtaining information on savings associated
with travel alternatives based on requests from users reflecting
travel itineraries, respectively. Each itinerary is analyzed to
determine a set of alternative itineraries comparable to the travel
itinerary specified in the request based on selected rules associated
with travel. Then a value or cost of the input travel itinerary is
determined and a value for each of the alternative itineraries is
also calculated. Offutt then generates a report reflecting the input
travel itinerary specified in the request, each of the alternative
7
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
itineraries, the value for each travel itinerary, and a difference
between the value for the travel itinerary specified in the request
and each of the alternative itineraries. Offutt para. 11.
08. Offutt describes conducting this search by performing non-
obvious re-configurations of goods and services and/or checking
the prices of non-obvious suppliers of pre-packaged goods and
services. Offutt requests just-in-time "best offer" price quotes
from suppliers, thereby creating a type of online, last-minute
auction. In the case of travel, a non-obvious product re-
configuration would include: 1) alternative flight origin or
destination cities; 2) alternative lodging accommodations; and 3)
splitting a connecting flight itinerary into two tickets. Offutt
describes doing so with a personal digital assistant. Offutt para.
25.
09. Offutt describes doing so with geographic/proximity-based
searching, mapping, and search constraint relaxation. Offutt para.
42.
10. Offutt describes this in more detail as using a geocoding
processor to attach geocodes (for example, latitude and longitude
or similar information identifying location) to the origin and
destination addresses, and communicating with a supplier
interface for airports and lodgings within the proximity tolerances
specified in the buyer's request. Offutt uses search constraint
relaxation to "relax" constraints of the buyer's request, and test
8
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
whether this relaxation will lower the total travel cost, such as
price of the travel components. Offutt para. 4 7.
11. Offutt describes re-pricing the re-configured travel options,
taking into consideration all alternative airports, routings,
lodgings, pre-packaged tours, andjust-in-time offerings. Offutt
para. 52.
12. Offutt describes identifying and sorting repriced travel options
that are lower than the original price conveyed in a buyer request.
Offutt portrays savings responses geographically on a map. Such
a map enables the buyer to select from the low-cost alternatives by
visualizing the differences. For example, how significant is an
alternative flight plan (including, for example, flying in and out of
different airports and at different times) or the location of an
alternative hotel (staying at a hotel inside or outside a destination
Smith
city). FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a map produced by
mapping processor 440. Travel routes 710 and 720 show two
alternative routes along with their respective prices. Offutt para.
53.
13. Smith is directed to locating documents via embedded links on
computer networks. Smith 1 :7-11.
14. Smith describes using hyperlinks for a travel web site to link
travel mode descriptions with further information. Smith 10:25-
11: 13; Fig. 8.
9
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-20, 23, 25, and 34 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, and Delorme '052
As to independent claim 1, reciting "multiple areas within said changed
in size area as at least one of the selected starting area for travel or said
ending area for travel," we are persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Delorme '052 does not describe or suggest using its circles to encompass
plural starting or ending points. Br. 15.
Claims 2--4 and 34 depend from claim 1.
As to independent claims 5 and 1 7, the Examiner finds that Delorme
'040 describes a graphical user interface including a map image including a
plurality of starting and ending that can be selected with a pointing device
such as a mouse. The Examiner finds that Delorme '052 describes a
changeable size circle moveable over a map that selects some portion of the
map. This does not change the size of the overall image, but does change
the collection of items on the map circumscribed by the circle, such as travel
location options. Changing the size of the circle expands or contracts the
enclosed area and the perimeter and all that is encompassed within that area,
which would necessarily add or delete any points referenced in the circle,
such as airports, and other travel options. The Examiner finds that Offutt
describes showing multiple travel options between airports and another part
of said trip, and showing prices for those options. Final Act. 24--33. We
agree. FF 01-14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that these references fail
to describe the limitations for the reasons we just provided. App. Br. 23-28.
10
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
As to separately argued claim 7 reciting different perimeters, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that changing the size of the circle in Delorme
'052 changes its perimeter. Ans. 22-25.
Claims 18-20, 23, and 25 depend from claim 17. The arguments do no
more than recite the limitation and make a general allegation the art does not
show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate argument under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37. As our reviewing court held,
we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed Cir 2011).
Claims 8, 9, 11, 14-16, 26-28, 30, and 33 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a)
as unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Smith
As to independent claim 8, reciting "said movable element is actuated to
select an area of said hyperlinked image including at least one airport, and
said movable element being variable to change a number of said airports
which are included within said area without changing a size of said map, and
to change a number of said hyperlinks for the plurality of airports based on a
changed number of said airports included within said area," we are
persuaded by Appellant's argument that Smith does not describe or suggest
using its circles to encompass plural starting or ending points. Br. 31.
Claims 9, 11, and 14--16 depend from claim 8.
As to independent claim 26, the Examiner finds that Delorme '040
describes a graphical user interface including a map image including a
11
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
plurality of airports that can be selected with a pointing device such as a
mouse. Airports by definition can form begin and end points of a trip.
Smith shows how hyperlinks can be an implementation for responding to
such mouse clicks, particularly in a travel application. The Examiner finds
that Delorme '052 describes a changeable size circle moveable over a map
that selects some portion of the map. This does not change the size of the
overall image, but does change the collection of items on the map
circumscribed by the circle, such as airports. The Examiner finds that Offutt
describes showing multiple travel options between airports and another part
of said trip, and showing prices for those options. Final Act. 48-52. We
agree. FF 01-14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that these references fail
to describe the limitations for the reasons we just provided. App. Br. 35-36.
Claims 27, 28, 30, and 33 depend from claim 26. The arguments do no
more than recite the limitation and make a general allegation the art does not
show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate argument under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37.
Claims 6, 21, and 22 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Yagyu
The arguments do no more than recite the limitation and make a general
allegation the art does not show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate
argument under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and
claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 1 7.
12
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
Claims j2 and Jj rejected under 35 U.S.C. § j03(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Yagyu
The arguments do no more than recite the limitation and make a general
allegation the art does not show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate
argument under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7. Claim 12 depends from claim 8 and
claim 31 depends from claim 26.
Claims 13 and 32 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Sehr
The arguments do no more than recite the limitation and make a general
allegation the art does not show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate
argument under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7. Claim 13 depends from claim 8 and
claim 32 depends from claim 26.
Claim 24 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Sehr, and Yagyu
The arguments do no more than recite the limitation and make a general
allegation the art does not show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate
argument under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7. Claim 24 depends from claim 17.
Claims 10 and 29 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Iyengar
The arguments do no more than recite the limitation and make a general
allegation the art does not show this. This is insufficient to act as a separate
13
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
argument under 37 C.F .R. § 41.37. Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and
claim 29 depends from claim 26.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 17, and 26 rejected under obviousness type double patenting
relative to the claims in Harris
We agree that claims 1 and 8 are not properly rejected for the same
reasons they are not properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
limitations we find are not described in the applied references are also not
found in the Harris claims. As to claims 5, 17, and 26, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and analysis from Final Action 7-10 and 12-17, and
Answer 1---6 and 7-11 and reach similar legal conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1--4 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, and Delorme '052 is improper.
The rejection of claims 5, 7, 17-20, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, and Delorme '052 is proper.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 14--16 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Smith is
improper.
The rejection of claims 26-28, 30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Smith is proper.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Yagyu is improper.
14
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, and Yagyu is
proper.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith and Yagyu is improper.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith and Yagyu is proper.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Sehr is improper.
The rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Sehr is proper.
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Sehr, and Yagyu is proper.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Iyengar is improper.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Delorme '040, Offutt, Delorme '052, Smith, and Iyengar is proper.
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 under obviousness type double patenting
relative to the claims in Harris is improper.
The rejection of claims 5, 17, and 26 under obviousness type double
patenting relative to the claims in Harris is proper.
15
Appeal2014-001901
Application 12/545,752
uECISION
The rejections of claims 1--4, 6, 8-16, and 34 are reversed.
The rejections of claims 5, 7, and 17-33 are affirmed.
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)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16