Ex Parte Whitsett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2013

11694150 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TROY G. WHITSETT, FAYYAZ H. SHAH,
LAURA JOHNSTON, NOEL HOLMES, and DAVID M. GILLEM, JR.
____________

Appeal 2011-011163
Application 11/694,150
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011163
Application 11/694,150

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-271. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to determining and displaying a themed travel
itinerary comprising several available products and/or services such that a
user may build and modify a themed travel itinerary in real-time around a
skeleton itinerary including selected and suggested travel products having a
selected theme (Spec., para. [0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. An apparatus for assembling and displaying a
travel itinerary comprising a plurality of travel products
selected from a database based on a selected theme in a manner
that reduces the burden on inventory systems, the apparatus
comprising a processor configured to direct the apparatus to:
run queries on an inventory system based on a initial user
input, the initial user input comprising the selected theme,
wherein the inventory system includes, for at least some travel
products, theme data corresponding to respective ones of the at
least some travel products;
retrieve travel products from said inventory system
having theme data corresponding to the selected theme of the
user input;
cause retrieved travel products corresponding to the
selected theme to be displayed;
receive a plurality of user inputs indicating select travel
options, each select travel option including at least one of the
retrieved travel products;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 16, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed May 31,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 28, 2011).
Appeal 2011-011163
Application 11/694,150

3
cause information corresponding to each select travel
option to be saved to a wishlist, each select travel option
including a designation of at least one of the group consisting of
a hotel, an activity, an event, and a dining option;
generate a plurality of travel packages based on the
information saved to the wishlist, each travel package including
a group of travel products corresponding to select travel options
of the wishlist; and
rank each travel package within the plurality of travel
packages by associating a total price for each respective travel
package with one of a plurality of defined price categories.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over DeLorme (US 5,948,040, iss. Sep. 7, 1999)
and Sprenger (US 2003/0040946 A1, pub. Feb. 27, 2003).
Claims 2, 9, 11, 18, 20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over DeLorme, Sprenger, and Razza (US 2006/0064333 A1,
pub. Mar. 23, 2006).
We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19, and 21-26
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of DeLorme and Sprenger discloses or suggests “rank each
travel package within the plurality of travel packages by associating a total
price for each respective travel package with one of a plurality of defined
price categories,” as recited in independent claim 12 (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br.

2 Appellants argue claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-17, 19, and 21-26 together as a
group (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4-5). We select independent claim 1 as

Appeal 2011-011163
Application 11/694,150

4
2-5). Appellants assert that the Examiner admits that DeLorme does not
disclose the aforementioned limitation of independent claim 1, and that
Sprenger only discloses ranking “services,” and not “travel packages”
including a group of “services,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appellants’ assertion is misplaced, as Appellants argue DeLorme and
Sprenger individually, when the rejection is directed to a combination. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, DeLorme is cited for
disclosing travel packages. Sprenger is cited for disclosing ranking travel-
related components. While Sprenger specifically only discloses ranking
individual travel “services,” as opposed to “travel plans” having a group of
“services,” we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have known to apply this ranking system to the travel packages of
DeLorme. Factors supporting our decision include the following:
independent claim 1 recites and paragraphs [0116] and [0119] of Sprenger
disclose that the ranking is based on price; and paragraph [0007] of Sprenger
discloses “a travel plan having at least two travel components,” which would
have led one of ordinary skill to a similar disclosure, such as DeLorme.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 9, 11, 18, 20, and 27
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 9, 11,
18, 20, and 27, for the same reasons the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 10, and 19 from which they depend (App. Br. 10;
Reply Br. 5). As we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 10, and 19, we are also not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 2, 9, 11, 18, 20, and 27.

representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-011163
Application 11/694,150

5
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-27 is AFFIRMED.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls