Ex Parte VAID

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 19, 2008

09409242 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 19, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RASHUL R. VAID
____________

Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: November 19, 2008
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Rashul R. Vaid (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the final rejection of claims 1-16 and 76-78. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
The invention relates to the sale of pre-paid airline tickets. A pre-paid
airline ticket is a record of an advance-purchase of an airline ticket for a
fixed price that may then be used by a customer to book a flight. According
to the invention, the pre-paid airline ticket includes an identifier, which
uniquely identifies the pre-paid airline ticket. The pre-paid airline ticket has
plurality of geographic flight parameters and a plurality of non-geographic
flight parameters associated with it that restricts the flight the customer can
book. At least one of the geographic flight parameters is an unspecified
geographic flight parameter. (Specification 2:18-22.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A pre-paid airline ticketing system
comprising:
a processor; and
a storage device in communication with said
processor and configured to store a record
representing a pre-paid, fixed-price option
purchased by a customer, the record including:
(i) a plurality of geographic flight
parameters and a plurality of non-geographic flight
parameters, at least one of the geographic flight
parameters being unspecified and at least one of

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jun. 4, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 21, 2007),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Sep. 21, 2007).
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

3
the non-geographic flight parameters being
participating airlines available for selection by the
customer for booking a flight; and
(ii) an identifier associated with and
uniquely identifying the record for the customer to
use to exercise the pre-paid, fixed price option; and
said processor configured to:
verify an identifier submitted by a customer
to exercise the pre-paid, fixed-price option;
retrieve the record including the identifier
submitted by the customer;
directly communicate and present
information to the customer, the information
representative of flights available to be selected by
the customer based on the geographic and non-
geographic flight parameters stored in the record;
directly receive selection information of one
of the flights from the customer; and
book the flight selected by the customer
from among the presented flights by exercising the
pre-paid, fixed-price option.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Walker US 5,897,620 Apr. 27, 1999
Oneda US 5,953,705 Sep. 14, 1999
Hawaiian Air to Offer Tickets Through ATMs, Wall St. J., Jan. 6,
1998, at B6, available at ProQuest. (Herein after “Hawaiian Air”).
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-11, 14-16, and 76-78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Walker in view of Hawaiian Air.
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

4
2. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walker in view of Oneda.

ISSUES
The issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-16 and 76-78 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over Walker in view of Hawaiian Air. Specifically, did
the Examiner make a prima facie showing that the combination of Walker
and Hawaiian Air renders obvious a processor configured to “directly
communicate and present information to a customer, the information
representative of flights available to be selected by the customer based on
the geographic and non-geographic flight parameters stored in the record;”
wherein, the record includes “a plurality of geographic flight parameters, at
least one of the geographic flight parameters being unspecified.”

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) 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).

Claim construction
1. Claim 1 recites a record that includes “a plurality of geographic
flight parameters and a plurality of non-geographic flight
parameters, at least one of the geographic flight parameters being
unspecified and at least one of the non-geographic flight
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

5
parameters being participating airlines available for selection by
the customer for booking a flight.”
2. Claim 1 recites a processor configured to “directly communicate
and present information to the customer, the information
representative of flights available to be selected by the customer
based on the geographic and non-geographic flight parameters
stored in the record.”
The scope and content of the prior art
3. Walker relates to the booking of airline flights. (Col. 1, ll. 5-6.)
4. An itinerary includes the origin and destination locations with the
date of travel. (Col. 5, ll. 52-54.)
5. A central reservation system uses the itinerary to list flight
information and a special fair listing if available. (Col. 5, ll. 54-56.)
6. The special fair listing indicates that an unspecified-time ticket can
be purchased. (Col. 5, ll. 56-60.)
7. If the unspecified time ticket is purchased, the central reservation
system books the ticket. (Col. 6, ll. 2-3.)
8. For each booked unspecified time ticket, a passenger name record
number is created. (Col. 6, l. 4.)
9. In one embodiment, customers receive a verification code, which
is used to later retrieve actual flight information at the airport.
(Col. 22, ll. 40-45.)
10. The airline’s revenue management system obtains a list of actual
flights that satisfies the parameters of the unspecified time ticket.
(Col. 6, ll. 13-15.)
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

6
11. The revenue management system then places the customer on a
flight. (Col. 6, ll. 19-21.)
12. Airline, departing airport and destination airport could also be an
unspecified parameter for the ticket. (Col. 3, ll. 39-44.)
13. Hawaiian Air relates to the sale of coupon, essentially open tickets,
to customers using ATMs. (Pg. 1.)
14. Customers will need to contact Hawaiian Air to reserve space on
their desired flight. (Pg. 1.)
Any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
15. Walker does not disclose a processor configured to present
information to a customer of available flights based on the
geographic and non-geographic flight parameters stored in a
record, which includes at least one unspecified geographic flight
parameter.
The level of skill in the art
16. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellant has addressed the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art of airline flight sales. 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’”) (“[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
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

7
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
17. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and
should be read 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,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[W]e look to the specification to see if it provides a
definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation. As
this court has discussed, this methodology produces claims with only
justifiable breadth. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Further, as applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee. Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.” In re ICON Health and Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Limitations appearing in the
specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass
Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the 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
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

8
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 17-18.

ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 1-6, 14-16 and 76-78 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The Appellant contends that all the limitations of claim 1 are not met
because the combination of Walker and Hawaiian Air does not disclose the
customer selecting the actual flight. According to the Appellant, the
combination leads to the airline selecting the flight based on the booking
information, not the customer. (App. Br. 5-6).
The Examiner relies on disclosure in Walker of the creation of a
passenger name record (PNR) number or the obtaining of a verification code
by a customer as a “suggest[ion] that actual flight information is presented
and selected by the customer or agent via a network.” (Answer 4).
Claim 1 recites “present information to the customer, the information
representative of flights available to be selected by the customer based on
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

9
the geographic and non-geographic flight parameters stored in the record.”
(FF 2.) The record includes “at least one of the geographic flight parameters
being unspecified.” (FF 1.)
In order to make a prima facie showing of obviousness, the Examiner
must provide suggestion for all of the limitations of claim 1. Obviousness
requires a suggestion of all the elements in a claim (CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup
Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) and “a reason that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). “The first issue we address with
respect to obviousness is the scope and content of the prior art—specifically
whether the prior art exhibited every step of the methods claimed in
independent claims 1 and 31 of the ’099 patent.” Miniauction, Inc. v.
Thomson Corp., F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In Walker, the processor (i.e. central reservation system) is configured
to present flight information to a customer. (FF 5.) However, the
information is based on an itinerary provided by the customer or travel
agent. The itinerary includes origin, destination and dates of travel (FF 4),
but does not include an unspecified geographic parameter as required by
claim 1.
Further, if the customer selects a special fare listing from the
previously presented flight information, an unspecified time ticket for the
special fare listing is booked. (FF 5-7.) The unspecified time ticket could
include an unspecified geographic parameter. (FF 12.) However, the
processor is not configured to again present information to the customer
based on the parameters of the ticket. Instead, the airline’s revenue
Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

10
management system uses the ticket parameters to assign the customer to an
actual flight. (FF 10-11.)
After booking, a passenger name record is then created (FF 8), and the
customer receives a verification code (FF 9).
We conclude that while Walker does describe a processor configured
to present information and separately a record that includes an unspecified
parameter, the processor is not configured to present information to the
customer based on the record including the unspecified geographic flight
parameter.
The Examiner also cites Hawaiian Air for the use of an identifier that
is operable to book a flight by contacting the airline. (Answer 4.) While
Hawaiian Air broadly describes the customer contacting the airline to book a
flight using a pre-paid coupon. (FF 13-14.) The Examiner does not explain
how combining Walker with Hawaiian Air results in a processor configured
as recited in claim 1.
We conclude that the combination of Walker and Hawaiian Air does
not suggest all the limitations of claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 130(a) as being unpatentable over Walker in
view of Hawaiian Air has therefore not been established. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-16 and 76-78 depend from claim 1, whose rejection we have
reversed above. For the same reasons, we will also not sustain the rejections
of claims 7-11 over the cited prior art. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent
claims from which they depend are nonobvious.")

Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

11
The Rejection of Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Notwithstanding that the Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 over
Walker in view of Oneda (instead on in view of Hawaiian Air) in the Final
Rejection of Jul. 10, 2006, and the Appellant did not separately address the
rejection of claims 12 and 13, these claims depend from claim 1 and
therefore their rejection is reversed for the reasons discussed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-16 and 76-78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Walker in view of Hawaiian Air.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-16 and 76-78 is
reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2008-4358
Application 09/409,242

12

LV:

Fish and Richardson P C
Suite 5000 1717 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75201