Commissioner's Decision No. 1327

The Examiner rejected the patent application for a system for preparing a schedule for travel on the basis that the claims are obvious. The Patent Appeal Board (PAB) considered the question of obviousness in light of two pieces of prior art. The PAB found that the invention was not obvious, writing that, "while the implementation of this solution, from a technical standpoint, could be trivial for a skilled person once directed to do so, there is no apparent suggestion or impetus for the skilled person to implement such a solution". The PAB recommended several amendments to the claims and the Commissioner of Patents concurred with the finding by the PAB that the application was not obvious.