Ex Parte Norrid

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

09963716 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

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.
09/963,716 09/26/2001 Joshua A. Norrid AUS920010667US1 9290
45993 7590 07/31/2012
IBM CORPORATION (RHF)
C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ
P. O. BOX 23324
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73123
EXAMINER
KARMIS, STEFANOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3653
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA A. NORRID
____________

Appeal 2010-007657
Application 09/963,716
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007657
Application 09/963,716

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1 to 5, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a reservation system for use by
individuals, groups of travelers, travel agents, and travel wholesalers.
(Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for establishing a reservation directly into a
hotel Property Management System comprising:
providing a primary reservation management system web
server interfaced through a direct pathway to a hotel Property
Management System via terminal emulation, said direct
pathway excluding a Global Distribution System or a Central
Reservation System;
providing three or more clone reservation sites to said
primary reservation management system web server, each clone
reservation site having a user interface tailored for use by a
booking party type selected from a group consisting at least of a
wholesale booking party, an agent booking party, and a direct
customer party;
periodically synchronizing clone inventory databases of
said clone reservation sites with an inventory database of said
primary reservation management system web server;
responsive to a booking party attempting to book a
reservation on said primary reservation management system
web server, redirecting said booking party to one of said clone
reservation sites according to a type of booking party associated
with the attempting booking party;
Appeal 2010-007657
Application 09/963,716

3
via said customer-type tailored user interface on said
clone reservation system, collecting from said booking party a
reservation data set including itinerary and preferences for a
customer;
establishing a reservation in said hotel Property
Management System according to said reservation data set if a
matching service or product is available according to a hotel
Property Management System inventory database, said
reservation being associated with a customer profile;
determining a revenue value or a discount value to be
compensated to said booking party according to said customer-
type; and
recording said revenue or discount in a revenue pool for
said booking party.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
Claims 1 to 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mankes
(US 6,477,503 B1, iss. Nov. 5, 2002), Chen (US 6,873,957 B1, iss. Mar. 29,
2005), Pugliese (US 2001/0016825 A1, pub. Aug. 23, 2001), and Gramann
(US 2001/0049613 A1, pub. Dec. 6, 2001).
Claims 19 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mankes, Chen, Pugliese, Gramann, and Devarajan (US 7,167,904 B1, iss.
Jan. 23, 2007).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings on pages 3 to 6 of the Answer as
our own.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows.

Appeal 2010-007657
Application 09/963,716

4
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the prior art does not disclose providing an
itinerary from the customer so that the availability query takes place after the
customer has created the itinerary. We agree with the Examiner that in
Mankes the customer is creating the itinerary when the customer makes a
selection from the displayed available inventory. In this regard, we agree
with the Examiner that since the inventory includes accommodations, the
selection of inventory is the selection of an itinerary as broadly claimed.
We find that after the selection of an inventory item, the Mankes method
determines the availability and approves the selection (col. 7, ll. 64 to 67).
Therefore, Mankes does disclose an availability query after the customer has
created an itinerary by selecting from the inventory.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 to 5
because the Appellant has not addressed the separate patentability of these
claims.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 because we
agree with the finding of the Examiner that Chen discloses at column 4, lines
40 to 54 redirecting from a primary web address to a clone web address.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 because we
agree with the Appellant that the prior art relied on by the Examiner does not
disclose redirecting from a primary domain to a clone subdomain. We agree
with the Appellant that Devarajan discloses the process to register a domain
name but does not disclose redirection from a domain to a sub-domain.

Appeal 2010-007657
Application 09/963,716

5
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 5 and 19.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh