Ex Parte Gillespie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

12465067 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT GILLESPIE
and
THOMAS K. TOMOSKY
____________

Appeal 2012-003315
Application 12/465,067
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for grouping hotels for a travel entity,
comprising:
identifying a plurality of hotels stayed at in the past by
members of a travel entity;
Appeal 2012-003315
Application 12/465,067

2
identifying a subset of hotels from the plurality of hotels,
where the subset of hotels having a particular significance to the
travel entity, each hotel being associated with a position
indicator;
clustering hotels in the subset of hotels using a clustering
algorithm implemented by one or more processors, where the
clustering algorithm compares hotels in the subset of hotels to
each other using a similarity measure and the position indicator
for each hotel serves as a similarity measure for the clustering
algorithm; and
displaying on a display device a visual depiction of hotels
in a given cluster resulting from the clustering algorithm.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Udelhoven US 2002/0077871 A1 June 20, 2002
Treyz US 6,711,474 B1 Mar. 23, 2004
Rozell US 2005/0004830 A1 Jan. 6, 2005
Sadri US 2005/0027705 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Agrawal US 2005/0131770 A1 June 16, 2005
Sladky US 7,555,387 B2 June 30, 2009
Julie Barker, Keeping control when hotel costs soar, 47 Successful
Meetings, 31 (Mar. 1998) (hereinafter “Barker”).

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Treyz in view of Udelhoven and Rozell.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Udelhoven and Rozell and further in view of Agrawal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Udelhoven and Rozell and further in view of Barker.
Appeal 2012-003315
Application 12/465,067

3
Claims 8–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Treyz in view of Udelhoven and Rozell and further in
view of Sadri.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Udelhoven and Rozell and further in view of Sladky.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Treyz in view of Sadri and Rozell.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Sadri and Rozell and further in view of Agrawal.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Sadri and Rozell and further in view of Barker.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Sadri and Rozell and further in view of Sladky.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Treyz in view of Udelhoven and Rozell and further in view of Sadri.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Rozell does not
disclose clustering hotels using a clustering algorithm that compares hotels
to each other?

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that in the invention the clustering of hotels is
done by using a clustering algorithm that compares hotels to one another,
whereas in Rozell any comparison that takes place between hotels happens
after the clustering.
Appeal 2012-003315
Application 12/465,067

4
In rejecting the claims the Examiner relies on Rozell for teaching
comparing hotels in the subset of hotels to each other using a similarity
measure (Ans. 6). We find that Rozell discloses that hotels are clustered
according to location using their longitude and latitude within a mileage
threshold of a cluster center (¶ 43). After the cluster is established, the star
ratings of the various hotels are compared (¶ 63). We find that Rozell does
not disclose clustering hotels using a clustering algorithm that compares
hotels to each other. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2, 4, 6, and 7 that are dependent therefrom.
We will also not sustain the remaining rejections of the Examiner
because each of the claims rejected requires clustering hotels using a
clustering algorithm that compares hotels to each other and in each of the
remaining rejections, the Examiner relies on Rozell for teaching this subject
matter.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh