Ex Parte Lynch et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 4, 2003

08618005 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 4, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MICHAEL F. LYNCH and JONATHAN A. TURNER
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10 and 12 through 20, all the
claims pending in the instant application. Claims 6 and 11 have
been canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to a computer system and method of
automated travel pricing for travel reservation services. See
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
2
page 1 of Appellants’ specification. The system obtains
inventory information, specifying the rates and/or availability
of the plurality of travel arrangements, from one or more
computer reservation systems. The information is stored in a
database along with one or more portfolios of information
relating to a travel agency and each of the business entity
customers of the travel agency that can be used to discount the
listed rates of the travel arrangements. In response to a
specific travel itinerary from a customer, the system
automatically retrieves the inventory and/or discount information
from the database and determines the lowest-priced, available
travel arrangements conforming to the itinerary. See page 4 of
the Appellants’ specification. Appellants’ claim 1 present in
the application is representative of Appellants’ claimed
invention and is reproduced as follows:
1. An automated pricing system for use in a travel agency,
comprising:
a database operable to store computer reservation system
inventory information and travel agency profile information; and
a processor operable to:
retrieve from a plurality of computer reservation systems
inventory information comprising an identification of available
travel arrangements;

Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 6, 2001.
Appellants filed a reply brief on October 1, 2001. The Examiner
mailed an Office communication on November 2, 2001, stating that
the reply brief has been entered.
3
store said inventory information in said database;
in response to receipt of travel request information
specifying a travel itinerary, access said database to retrieve
computer reservation system inventory information and travel
agency profile information; and
determine from among the inventory information retrieved
from said database using the travel agency profile information,
the lowest cost available travel arrangements that conform to
said specified travel itinerary.
Throughout the opinion, we make references to the briefs1
and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of the
Appellants and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10 and
12 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
4
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
5
Appellants argue that independent claims 1, 8 and 14 recite
a processor that is operable to retrieve from a plurality of
computer reservation systems inventory information and store the
inventory information in a database. Appellants argue that
Garback and Webber fail to teach this limitation. See pages 5
through 9 of the brief.
We note that independent claim 1 recites
a processor operable to: retrieve from a plurality of
computer reservation systems inventory information
comprising an identification of available travel
arrangements; store said inventory information in said
database.
We note that Appellants’ independent claim 8 recites
[a]n automated pricing system for use in a travel agency,
comprising: a database operable to store computer
reservation system inventory information and travel agency
profile information; and a processing network connected to
the database and operable to: access a plurality of computer
reservation systems and retrieve computer reservation system
inventory information comprising an identification of
available travel arrangements; store said retrieved computer
reservation system inventory information in said database.
We also note that Appellants’ independent claim 14 recites
[a] method for automatically pricing travel arrangements for
use in a travel agency, comprising the steps of: accessing a
plurality of computer reservation systems and retrieving
computer reservation system inventory information comprising
an identification of available travel arrangements; . . .
storing said retrieved computer reservation system inventory
information and said generated travel agency profile
information in a database.
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
6
The Examiner agrees that Garback does not expressly disclose
a database of travel information being stored before the receipt
of a travel request. See page 4 of the Examiner’s answer. The
Examiner argues that Webber does retrieve information about
available flights and flight segments from a stored database, the
tariff file, before connecting to the computer reservation system
to check on the availability of seats on the flights. See page 7
of the Examiner’s answer.
Upon our review of Webber, we fail to find that Webber
teaches storing inventory information retrieved from a computer
reservation system and determining from the stored inventory
information the lowest cost available travel arrangements as
recited in Appellants’ claims. Webber is attempting to solve the
problem that the computer reservation system such as Apollo does
not indicate that the fares shown on the screen are subject to
restrictions or changes. As a result, travel agencies must
consult a Passenger Tariff Set, which is as big as a big city
telephone book, to verify each flight. See column 1, lines 33
through 65. Webber solves this problem by providing a tariff
file, which stores the information in the Airline Tariff
Publishing Co. (ATPCO) set. See column 3, lines 7 through 40.
For determining potential flights and seat reservations, Webber
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
7
still must access the computer reservation system to determine
whether or not travel arrangements are available. See column 6,
lines 34 through 40. Therefore, the tariff file as disclosed in
Webber does not store a database having computer reservation
system inventory information stored thereon as recited in
Appellants’ claims.
The Examiner recognizes that Webber’s list of various
sources does not contain sources of one or more computer
reservation systems. See page 7 of the Examiner’s answer. The
Examiner argues that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that that information could be
retrieved from the computer reservation systems and then stored
in a database such as the Webber tariff file. See page 8 of the
Examiner’s answer.
When determining obviousness, “[t]he factual inquiry whether
to combine references must be thorough and searching.” Lee, 277
F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433, citing McGinley v. Franklin
Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). “It must be based on objective evidence of record.”
Id. “Broad conclusory statements regarding the teaching of
multiple references, standing alone, are not ‘evidence.’” In re
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
8
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617. “Mere
denials and conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to
establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
at 1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Ark. Power &
Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
We note that the Examiner has not provided us any factual
basis for modifying the Webber tariff file to store such
information. Without the pertinent evidence, as well as reasons
by which the finding are deemed to support the agency’s
conclusions, we are unable to sustain the Examiner’s rejection
based on obviousness.
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
9
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 10 and 12
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Appeal No. 2002-0277
Application 08/618,005
10
David G. Wille, Esq.
Baker & Botts LLP
2001 Ross Avenue Ste. 600
Dallas, TX 75201-2980