Ex Parte Chaumont et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201712296160 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation