Ex Parte Chaumont et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

12296160 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
12/296,160 11/06/2009 Gilles Chaumont PT1197USPC 5089
132326 7590
Thompson Hine LLP
10050 Innovation Drive
Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45342-4934
EXAMINER
OHBA, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocket @ thompsonhine. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GILLES CHAUMONT, THIERRY DUFRESNE,
CEDRIC DOURTHE, and
MARC PATOUREAUX
Appeal 2016-007318
Application 12/296,160
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6—11, 13,
14, 16, 17, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 Appeal Brief 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to:
A global distribution system (GOS) organized for
searching travel deals from a plurality of travel vendor fare
1 Claims 1,21 and 22 were not listed as claims under appeal. We consider
the omittance a harmless typographical error.
Appeal 2016-007318
Application 12/296,160
databases is described. The GDS includes a travel multi-vendor
search engine (TMVSE) operating on any one of the plurality of
travel vendor fare databases it has access to. A travel deal tracker
(TDT) is associated to the TMVSE. The TDT provides
directions to the TMVSE to limit the number of required
transactions needed to obtain the searched travel deals. The TDT
is interrogated by the TMVSE each time a request from a travel
comparison website is received. For each received request,
directions are obtained under the form of a short list of travel
vendor from where searching must be conducted.
Specification 4.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A global distribution system organized for
searching travel deals from a plurality of travel vendor fare databases
accessible by the global distribution system, wherein each travel vendor fare
database is associated with a different travel vendor, the global distribution
system comprising:
at least one processor;
computer program code configured to be executed by the at least one
processor and upon execution to cause the processor to implement:
a travel multi-vendor search engine within the global distribution
system that operates on each database of the plurality of travel vendor fare
databases, and
a travel deal tracker within the global distribution system and
associated with the travel multi-vendor search engine,
wherein the travel multi-vendor search engine is configured to receive
a travel input request from a travel vendor comparison website, decode the
travel input request,
and interrogate the travel deal tracker based at least in part on the
decoded travel input request to receive a list that identifies at least one
selected travel vendor for the travel input request,
the travel deal tracker is configured to identify the at least one selected
travel vendor based at least in part on traffic of completed transactions made
of travel deals associated with the at least one selected travel vendor
previously processed by and stored within the global distribution system,
2
Appeal 2016-007318
Application 12/296,160
a single availability server within the global distribution system,
wherein the single availability server is configured to check the availability
of travel deals; and
the travel multi-vendor search engine is further configured to search
the travel vendor fare database associated with the at least one selected
travel vendor to enumerate travel deals matching the travel input request,
check availability of the enumerated travel deals to get travel solutions for
the travel input request by interrogating the single availability server to
check availability for all the enumerated travel deals, and format a
response including at least some of the travel solutions.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 6—11,13, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Barth (US Patent Number
7,627,606 B2; issued December 1, 2009 and Mace (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2007/0260495 Al; published November 8, 2007).
Final Rejection 2—17.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 10, 2015), the Reply Brief
(filed July 21, 2016), the Answer (mailed May 26, 2016) and the Final
Rejection (mailed April 2, 2015) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
3
Appeal 2016-007318
Application 12/296,160
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants argue the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 is
improper because Mace does not address the noted deficiency of Barth
because Mace is not directed to a global distribution system that checks for
travel deals. Appeal Brief 8. Appellants contend that “Mace actually
discloses a database structure that allows for a computer-savvy traveler or a
VRM [vacation rental management] professional to book airfare or car rental
services with a connection to a global distribution system, a discount airfare
site, or even a car rental agent” and therefore “the TS [travel services] hub
server 140 of Mace is not within a global distribution system, as alleged by
the Examiner.” Appeal Brief 8.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner
relies upon Barth to disclose a GDS organized for searching for travel deals
however Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s Barth findings instead
focusing on Mace alleged failure to disclose a GDS.2 See Final Rejection 2—
3; Appeal Brief 6—8. Further, Mace discloses employing a GDS by
connecting the air finder component 130 to the TS hub server 140 within the
software and database architecture shown in Figure 1 and Mace’s indication
that the employment of the GDS is optional does not negate the fact that
Mace discloses in paragraph 29 using a GDS with the TS Hub. Appellants
further argue that claim 1 recites “a travel multi-vendor search engine within
2 “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)).
4
Appeal 2016-007318
Application 12/296,160
the global distribution system” and therefore based upon the plain meaning
of the word “within,” the claimed “travel multi-vendor search engine and the
travel deal tracker” are enclosed or contained by the global distribution
system. Appeal Brief 9. Appellants contend:
Mace does not teach ‘a travel multi-vendor search engine” or “a
travel deal tracker” enclosed or contained by the global
distribution system as alleged by the Examiner. (Final Office
Action, pg. 5.) Instead, Mace simply discloses the air finder
component 130 of the disclosed TS hub server 140 are separate
from a global distribution system, and might be connected to one
or more global distribution systems.
Appeal Brief 9-10.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because the
characterization of the Mace as being optionally attached and not fully
enclosed within a GDS does not alleviate the fact that both Barth and Mace
disclose a GDS in association with database utilized for travel searches.3
See Final Rejection 2—17. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, as well as, claims 4, 6—11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 22
not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 11—12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4, 6—11, 13, 14, 16,
17, 21 and 22 is affirmed.
3 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
5
Appeal 2016-007318
Application 12/296,160
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
6