Ex Parte Weinstock et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 27, 2010

09694050 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY ROBERT WEINSTOCK, KIMBERLY ANN
DEVALLANCE, RANDALL ALLAN HASELHORST, CRAIG STEPHEN
KENNEDY, DAVID GARY SMITH, WILLIAM T. TINGLE,
and ANITA KAY KLOPFENSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2009-006237
Application 09/694,050
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: May 28, 2010
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-006237
Application 09/694,050

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant(s) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 96 to 136. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appellants appeared for oral
hearing on May 6, 2010.
We REVERSE.
Claim 96 is illustrative:
96. An Internet-enabled rental vehicle
reservation management system, the system
comprising:
an Internet web portal in communication
with the Internet, wherein the Internet web portal
is configured for access by an authorized purchaser
computer via the Internet to provide a user of the
authorized purchaser computer with an ability to
book a rental vehicle reservation with any of a
plurality of competitive rental vehicle service
providers, wherein the Internet web portal is
further configured to provide a plurality of
graphical user interface (GUI) menus to the
authorized purchaser computer for display thereon,
wherein at least one of the GUI menus is
configured to accept a selection by the user as to
which one of the plurality of competitive rental
vehicle service providers that a rental vehicle
reservation is to be booked with, and wherein the
Internet web portal is further configured to
transmit the rental vehicle reservation to the
selected one of the competitive rental vehicle
service providers;
a computer network operated by one of the
competitive rental vehicle service providers, the
computer network being in communication with
the Internet web portal, the computer network
comprising a mainframe that is configured to
execute a rental vehicle software program;
Appeal 2009-006237
Application 09/694,050

3
wherein at least one of the GUI menus is
configured to interface a user of the authorized
purchaser computer with the rental vehicle
software program; and
wherein the rental vehicle software program
is configured to (1) automatically book, in
response to input from the user, a rental vehicle
reservation with the competitive rental vehicle
service provider that operates the computer
network without human intervention on the part of
personnel of the competitive rental vehicle service
provider that operates the computer network and
(2) manage the booked rental vehicle reservation
in response to input from the user.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Barr US 5,182,705 Jan. 26, 1993
Walker US 5,794,207 Aug. 11, 1998
Brandt US 6,125,384 Sep. 26, 2000

Many Ways to Sell, Travel Agent, 36 (1995) (hereinafter
“Travel Agent”).
Appellant(s) appeal the following rejection(s):
1. Claims 96 to 105, 107 to 127, and 131 to 136 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walker in view of Travel Agent and Brandt.
2. Claims 106 to 108 and 128 to 130 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walker in view of Travel Agent, Brandt and Barr.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in concluding that a GUI menu configured to
accept a selection by the user as to which one of a plurality of competitive
Appeal 2009-006237
Application 09/694,050

4
rental vehicle service providers that a rental vehicle reservation is to be
booked would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
Walker discloses a method and system for prospective buyers of
goods and services to communicate a binding purchase offer globally to
potential sellers, and for sellers to search for relevant buyer purchase offers
and bind a buyer to a contract based on the buyers purchase offer (col. 8, ll.
27 to 32). Communications can take place between buyers and sellers via an
electronic network and central computer (col. 8, ll. 42 to 44). The buyer
views a buyer interface 400 and selects goods to purchase. The goods may
include rental car leases (Figs. 4 and 5). The buyer fills out a form which
constitutes a conditional purchase offer (CPO) regarding the goods or
services sought for purchase (col. 8, ll. 46 to 48). The CPO is made
available to a plurality of potential sellers and the seller selects a CPO and
binds the purchaser (col. 19, 13 to 16).
Travel Agent discloses a 24 hour Automated Rental Management
System (ARMS) that enables insurance adjusters to secure a car for
customers electronically. ARMS allows insurance companies to do business
with Enterprise-Rent A-Car® including making reservations, rental
extensions, billing, and payment.
Brandt discloses the FlowMark application software which permits an
authorized user to enter car rental information through a rental car agency’s
web site form (col. 14, ll. 53 to 57).

Appeal 2009-006237
Application 09/694,050

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 96 to 105, 107 to 127 and 131 to 136
The Appellants argue that the cited references do not disclose a GUI
menu configured to accept a selection by the user of a plurality of rental
vehicle competitors. We agree. The Examiner agrees that neither Walker
nor Travel Agent disclosed this feature (Ans. 5). The Examiner relies on
Brandt for teaching a software application that allows an authorized user to
enter car rental information through a rental car agency’s website form.
However, the Examiner does not find or assert that Brandt discloses that a
user can make a selection from a plurality of rental agency competitors. As
such, the Examiner has not established that it would have been obvious from
the teachings of the cited references to provide a GUI menu configured to
accept a selection by the user as to which one of a plurality of competitive
rental vehicle service providers that a rental vehicle reservation is to be
booked as required by claim 96. As such, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 96 and claims 97 to 105, 107 to 112
dependent thereon.
Likewise, the Examiner has not established that it would have been
obvious to provide a user of the authorized purchases computer with an
option through the Internet web portal to select a rental vehicle service
provider with which to book a rental vehicle reservation from among a
plurality of competitive rental vehicle service providers as required by claim
113 from which claims 114 to 127 and 131 to 136 depend.
In view of the forgoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 96 to 105, 107 to 127, and 131 to 136.
Appeal 2009-006237
Application 09/694,050

6
Claims 106 to 108 and 128 to 130
In rejecting claims 106 to 108 and 128 to 130, which are dependent on
claims 97 and 113 respectively, the Examiner relies on Barr for teaching an
automated work management system in which each staff member is assigned
an authorization limit. The Examiner has not established that Barr discloses
that a user can choose between a plurality of rental agency competitors.
Therefore, we will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 106 to
108 and 128 to 130.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

ORDER
REVERSED

hh

THOMPSON COBURN LLP
ONE US BANK PLAZA
SUITE 3500
ST LOUIS, MO 63101