10987673 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2010)

Ex Parte van Deursen

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 15, 2010

10987673 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte MARC VAN DEURSEN __________ Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 Technology Center 2100 __________ Decided: June 15, 2010 __________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 2 The Invention The disclosed invention relates generally to a website for making travel plans (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of making travel plans from an originating location by searching one or more databases on a network, comprising the steps of: selecting a time period in which travel is to be taken; selecting a geographical region in which a possible travel destination is located; selecting weather criteria for a travel destination; searching one or more weather related databases to locate possible destinations in said selected region having said selected weather criteria in said selected time period; searching travel scheduling databases for said located possible destinations to determine at least one travel plan. The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Jones (US 2002/0095256 A1, July 18, 2002). ISSUE 1 Appellant asserts that Jones fails to disclose features recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10-15). Did the Examiner err in finding that Jones discloses features recited in claim 1? Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 3 ISSUE 2 Appellant asserts that Jones fails to disclose a “weather forecast” as recited in claim 3 or “weather forecasting data sources” as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 16). Did the Examiner err in finding that Jones discloses a weather forecast and weather forecasting data sources? ISSUE 3 Appellant asserts that Jones fails to disclose any of the “weather related choices” recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 16). Did the Examiner err in finding that Jones discloses at least one weather related choice recited in claim 6? ISSUE 4 Appellant asserts that Jones fails to disclose any of the time span choices recited in claim 20 (App. Br. 17). Did the Examiner err in finding that Jones discloses at least one of the time span choices recited in claim 20? Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 4 FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Jones discloses “making travel plans and reservations” in which a “customer’s request typically includes . . . the departure and destination cities . . . and travel dates” (¶ [0006]). 2. Jones discloses that “travelers may require additional information associated with the proposed travel arrangements” (¶ [0007]) and discloses a “system and method that provides information based on a flexible set of user-defined criteria” (¶ [0008]). 3. Jones discloses that the flexible set of user-defined criteria may include “weather conditions (e.g., temperature and snow base) . . . and certain geographic locations” (¶ [0025]). 4. Jones discloses that the “user’s request . . . is processed by one or more servers . . . [and the] result of the processed request provided to the user . . . may be a result of . . . inquiries that . . . comprise some or all of the requested information” (¶ [0026]). The results are obtained by querying “one or more data tables to provide a response to the request” (id.). Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Issue 1 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-22 with respect to issue 1 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses selecting a time period in which travel is to be taken. Appellant argues that Jones fails to disclose selecting a time period in which travel is to be taken (App. Br. 10). However, as set forth above, Jones discloses a user making travel plans based on “travel dates” (FF 1). We construe the term “travel dates” broadly but reasonably and in light of Appellant’s Specification to include date or times during which travel is to take place. Since the date or times during which travel is to take place is equivalent to time periods in which travel is to be taken, we agree with the Examiner that Jones discloses selecting a time period in which travel is to be taken. Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 6 Appellant argues that the Jones disclosure of “travel dates” “is typical for the usual way of doing business” but asserts that this disclosure “is not a part of the Jones detailed description of their purported invention” (App. Br. 10). However, as described above, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because Jones, in fact, discloses this feature. We are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses selecting a geographical region in which a possible travel destination is located. Jones discloses making travel plans (FF 1) based on user-defined criteria (FF 2) that may include certain geographic locations (FF 3). We agree with the Examiner, based on this disclosure of Jones, that Jones discloses selecting a geographic region in which a travel destination is located. Appellant argues that “there is no selection or selecting being described” in Jones (App. Br. 11). We disagree with Appellant’s contention. Construing the term “selecting” broadly but reasonably to include any form of choosing between options, we agree with the Examiner that Jones discloses the choosing of geographic areas or regions since the user in the Jones disclosure provides a desired geographic location and would have chosen (or selected) such a location in order to identify the location for input. We are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses selecting weather criteria for a travel destination. As described above, Jones discloses making travel plans (FF 1) based on user- Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 7 defined criteria (FF 2) that may include weather conditions (FF 3). Since a user inputs desired weather criteria or conditions pertaining to travel plans and would have selected the desired weather criteria or conditions in order to have input such information, we agree with the Examiner that Jones discloses selecting weather criteria for a travel destination. Appellant asserts that “there is no discussion or description of ‘selecting weather criteria for a travel destination’” (App. Br. 12). For at least the reasons set forth above, we disagree with Appellant. We are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses searching one or more weather related databases to locate possible destinations in said selected region having said selected weather criteria in said selected time period. As described above, Jones discloses making travel plans (FF 1) based on user-defined criteria (FF 2) that may include travel dates (FF 1), weather conditions, and geographic location information (FF 3). The results of the user’s inquiry is determined and returned to the user (FF 4). Since Jones’ system receives date, location, and weather condition criteria from a user and generates a travel plan result by searching databases or data tables based on these criteria, we agree with the Examiner that Jones discloses searching relevant databases to match location, weather, and time criteria. We are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses searching travel scheduling databases for said located possible destinations to determine at least one travel plan. As described Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 8 above, Jones discloses searching data tables or databases (FF 4) to determine a user’s travel plans (FF 1) based on user-defined criteria (FF 2) that includes travel dates (FF 1), weather or geographic information (FF 3). We find no distinction between the Jones disclosure of searching data tables and the claimed limitation of searching a travel database for possible destinations to determine at least one travel plan despite Appellant’s unsupported assertion that such searching is “simply not done by Jones” (App. Br. 15). Claim 17 is similar to claim 1 and Appellant provides no additional arguments for claim 17. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 17, and claims 2-16 and 18-22, which fall therewith, with respect to issue 1. Issue 2 We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses a “weather forecast” or “weather forecasting data sources” as recited in claims 3 and 7, respectively. As described above, Jones discloses receiving desired weather conditions from a user and determining upcoming travel plans for the user based on the received weather conditions (FF 1-4). We construe the term “weather forecast” broadly but reasonably to include any prediction of weather conditions. Since Jones identifies travel destinations for a user based on desired weather conditions and actual weather conditions at any location are predicted (in order to provide the user Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 9 with destinations that may satisfy the user’s weather condition criteria), we agree with the Examiner that Jones discloses a weather forecast. Further, in order to predict the weather at a designated location, weather-related information would have been needed. We agree with the Examiner that such information would have been obtained from a database as a database stores data. Appellant argues that “neither of the words weather or forecast is mentioned or discussed within the entire publication” (App. Br. 16). Setting aside the fact that Jones, in fact, “mentions” or “discusses” at least the term “weather” (e.g., § [0008], § [0009], § [0025]), we note that for a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3 or 7 with respect to issue 2. Issue 3 We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses at least one of the “weather related choices” recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 16). Claim 6 recites a weather related choice including snow. As described above, Jones discloses user-defined criteria including weather conditions that include snow (FF 3). Since Jones discloses weather related Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 10 choices including snow, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that Jones supposedly fails to disclose this feature. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 6 with respect to issue 3. Issue 4 We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Jones discloses at least one of the time span choices recited in claim 20 (App. Br. 17). Claim 20 recites a time span that includes a month, date, and year of departure and return. Jones discloses determining travel plans based on travel dates (FF 1). We find that “travel dates,” construed broadly but reasonably and in light of the Specification, includes dates of travel which define a time span between departure to and return from a travel destination. We also find that a travel date, being a “date,” includes an indication of a day, month, and year when construed broadly but reasonably since an indication of a day, month and year constitute a “date.” As such, we agree with the Examiner that Jones discloses a time span including departure and return dates. Appellant argues that Jones fails to “even remotely teach or suggest such choices” (App. Br. 17) but fails to provide any further support for this contention. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 20 with respect to issue 4. Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 11 CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in: 1. finding that Jones discloses features recited in claim 1 (issue 1), 2. finding that Jones discloses a weather forecast and weather forecasting data sources (issue 2), 3. finding that Jones discloses at least one weather related choice recited in claim 6 (issue 3), and 4. finding that Jones discloses at least one of the time span choices recited in claim 20 (issue 4). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2009-006956 Application 10/987,673 12 msc GREER, BURNS & CRAIN 300 S. WACKER DR. 25TH FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606