Ex Parte Jokinen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201610262681 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 10/262,681 09/30/2002 Jukka Jokinen P3103US00 8838 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 12/27/2016 EXAMINER IQBAL, KHAWAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUKKA JOKINEN, ARTO KIISKINEN, and PETRI LEHTOVIRTA Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—22, which constitute all the claims pending this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “a service provider device, and methods wherein a plurality of services from a service provider is supported” (Spec. 1:3—7). Specifically, Appellants’ invention is directed to a mobile communication terminal that supports one or more service providers by storing service provider settings in a storage device (memory) that is related to the service provider (Spec. 3:13—21). The storage device stores service provider settings in a memory location specific to the service provider (Spec. 3:19-21). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following, cause, at least in part, storage of a first set of service provider settings related to a first plurality of client-server based services provided by a first service provider, in a first memory location specific for the first service provider, access to the first memory location is based, at least in part, on the first service provider; and cause, at least in part, storage of a second set of service provider settings related to a second plurality of client-server based services provided by a second service provider, in a second memory location specific for the second service provider, wherein one instance of the first set of the service provider settings is configured to be used in at least two client-server based services of the first service provider, 2 Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 wherein said settings are intended at least for use in a mobile communication terminal when at least one of said client-server based services is used, wherein said settings are useable by a plurality of applications utilizing said client-server based services, and wherein said apparatus is a mobile communication terminal configured to support said client server based services provided by said service providers. REFERENCES and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Chambon (US 2002/0016186 Al; published Feb. 7, 2002) and Shi (US 2004/0022216 Al; published Feb. 5, 2004). ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 9, 12, and 20l Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Chambon teaches storage of a first set of service provider settings in a first memory location specific to the first service provider, as required by independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3). Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in finding Shi teaches access to the first memory location based, at least in part, on the first service provider, as required by independent claims 1, 9, 12, and 20 (App. Br. 10-11). Appellants further contend “Chambon is complete unto itself and, absent the instant 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—5, 8, 11, 13—16, 18, 19, and 22. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein (App. Br. 8—18; Reply Br. 2—5). 3 Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 application’s disclosure and teachings, there would be no motivation to combine Chambon with Shi” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Final Act. 3—11; Ans. 4—8). Particularly, we agree with the Examiner finding Chambon’s SIM sends requests for communications performed by a microprocessor, thus “a first set of service provider settings” are in a first memory location specific to a first provider, as claimed (Chambon’s SIM circuit is a memory location specific for storing service provider settings relating to SMS communications) (Final Act. 5; Ans. 4). We also agree with the Examiner finding Shi teaches access to a memory is based on a server provider and that a SIM stores files for operation on a network such that if a network is forbidden a user cannot automatically access it, thus it must be accessed in a specific memory (Final Act. 7—10; Ans. 4; see Shi Fig. 2, Abstract, || 7, 26). That is, Shi’s storage architecture has separate memory for each of at least two service providers, thus proper operation of Shi’s wireless phone requires a service provider accessing its respective memory (Shi 17). Appellants assert there is no discussion in Chambon of service provider specific memory (App. Br. 10) and Shi does not suggest access to a memory location based, at least in part, on the first service provider (App. Br. 11). Appellants’ arguments, however, merely recite the claim language and state the references do not disclose the limitations recited, without providing evidence or reasoning as to why the Examiner’s findings are incorrect (App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 4). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are merely attorney argument, which is not factual evidence required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness {see In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 4 Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence”)). Appellants’ Reply Brief also provides no persuasive evidence rebutting the Examiner’s reasonable findings. Additionally, Appellants’ argument that Chambon is complete unto itself and, thus, absent the instant application’s disclosure and teachings, there would be no motivation to combine Chambon with Shi, is also merely attorney argument that does not persuasively address the Examiner’s findings (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4). The Examiner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 418 (2007). Specifically, the Examiner finds the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify Chambon’s device with Shi’s teaching of accessing a memory location based, at least in part, on a first service provider, in order to enhance system performance, thereby allowing the wireless communication device to operate in various types of communication systems (Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 5). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument the proposed combination of Chambon and Shi is improper. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,9, 12, and 20, and dependent claims 2—5, 8, 11, 13—16, 18, and 19. 5 Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 Dependent Claims 6, 7, 10, 17, and 21 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Chambon discloses “an updated version of a setting of the service provider settings replaces a present version of that setting in the memory location specific for the first or second service provider,” as recited in dependent claims 6 and 17 (App. Br. 12—14). However, the Examiner relies on the combination of Chambon and Shi, specifically citing Shi’s teaching of replacing values in a system provisions status table with updated values (Ans. 5—6; Shi || 73—74, 89). Thus, Appellants are not arguing the references for what they were relied on and are addressing the references separately (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Chambon and Shi discloses “at least one of the service provider settings occurs only once in the memory location specific for the associated first or second service provider,” as recited in dependent claim 7. Appellants argue they cannot determine the portion of the cited references the Examiner relies on for disclosing the disputed limitation (App. Br. 16). The Examiner finds both Chambon and Shi teach this limitation, citing, as an example, storage of an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) (Final Act. 11; Ans. 6—7; Chambon || 24, 27, 34—35; Shi 126). Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasonable findings and therefore do not persuade us of Examiner error (App. Br. 16). Appellants additionally contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Chambon and Shi does not teach sending a message in response to receiving a request from the mobile communication terminal 6 Appeal 2016-000565 Application 10/262,681 pertaining to any one of the plurality of client-server based services of the first service provider, as recited in dependent claims 10 and 21. Further, Appellants argue they cannot discern where the disputed limitation is taught in the combination of Chambon and Shi (App. Br. 17—18). Appellants’ argument that they cannot discern where the disputed limitation of claims 10 and 21 is taught in the combination of Chambon and Shi, does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasonable findings and does not persuade us of Examiner error as the Examiner finds each of Chambon and Shi teaches this limitation (Final Act. 10; Ans. 7). Specifically, the Examiner finds Chambon teaches service provider settings are sent, via a mobile telephone, from one microprocessor to another microprocessor of a mobile telephone (Final Act. 10; Ans. 7; Chambon H 24—25, 27). The Examiner further finds Shi teaches service provider settings are transmitted over the air in response to a user request to update system modes (Ans. 7; Shi | 89). For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of separately argued dependent claims 6, 7, 10, 17, and 21. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—22 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation