Ex Parte Mikkonen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613099677 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/099,677 05/03/2011 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 06/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tomi Matti Mikael Mikkonen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P5141US01 1355 EXAMINER PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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 TOMI MATTI MIKAEL MIKKONEN, ANTTI OSKARI V AHA-SIPILA, HENRI TAP ANI KUJALA, and IAN JUSTIN OLIVER Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1). Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for generating unique identifier values for applications and services. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: a request to generate one or more identifiers associated with a device, a user of the device, or a combination thereof, wherein the one or more identifiers are for use with one or more services, one or more applications, or a combination thereof; a generation of at least one seed value associated with the device, the user of the device, or a combination thereof in response to the request; and a processing of the at least one seed value to cause, at least in part, a generation of the one or more identifiers. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Klug et al. ("Klug") US 2001/0011274 Al Minami et al. ("Minami") US 2007 /0253430 Al Herzog et al. ("Herzog") US 2008/0320566 Al Cho et al. ("Cho") US 2009/0235326 Al Reynolds US 2010/0100940 Al Anderson et al. ("Anderson") US 2011/0154472 Al 2 Aug.2,2001 Nov. 1, 2007 Dec. 25, 2008 Sept. 17, 2009 Apr. 22, 2010 June 23, 2011 Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reynolds in view of Minami. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the modified Reynolds and Minami system as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, in view of Anderson. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the modified Reynolds and Minami system as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Herzog. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the modified Reynolds and Minami system as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, in view of Cho. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the modified Reynolds and Minami system as applied to claims l and 11 above, in view of Klug. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, Appellants argue the claims together. (App. Br. 3-7). As a result, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants' arguments thereto. Appellants contend claim 1 recites, "a generation of at least one seed value associated with the device, the user of the device, or a combination thereof in response to the request," and the Examiner conceded the Reynolds reference does not disclose the above-recited feature. (App. Br. 4 ). Appellants further contend that the generating unique identities based on offsets added to seed identities in the Minami reference is not "a 3 Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 generation of at least one seed value associated with the device, the user of the device, or a combination thereof in response to the request." (App. Br. 4). Appellants further contend: Reynolds, paragraph [0020]. Reynolds teaches inputting a "single persistently-stored" seed identity into a transformation engine and performing a transformation on the seed identity to produce dynamic outputs. Id. The Examiner referred to paragraphs [0042]-[0044] where Reynolds teaches generating unique identities by adding an offset to the seed identity. (App. Br. 5). The Examiner maintains that At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the seed values of Reynolds when a request is received in order to provide a new and unique identifier upon each request thereby preventing collisions by identifiers with the same value. (Ans. 4). The Examiner further maintains: Minami teaches a different scenario where, upon receiving a request a seed register (i.e. a seed value) within the identification field generator is incremented and this incremented value is processed to generate an identifier (see paragraphs [0334]- [0335]). Appellant appears to argue that incrementing a seed value is not the same as the claimed generation of a seed value. It is noted that the specific method of generation is not recited in the rejected claims. (Ans. 5). The Examiner additionally maintains that the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, but limitations are not read into the claims. (Ans. 5). The Examiner further maintains: Appellant's specification merely gives examples of what seeds may be: "any integer value used to set the starting point for generating a series of ... unique identifiers" (see paragraph 4 Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 [0026]). Based on this example from the Specification, Minami teaches the generation of a seed value since the incremented value of Minami is used as a starting point to generate a series of unique identifiers. Furthermore, the incrementing of a value is creates a new value and therefore is generating that new value. For example, in Minami the seed register (i.e. value) is at a starting value (e.g. 10) and when a request is made for a first identifier the value is incremented to a new value (e.g. 1 O+ 1 =11). Upon receiving the next request the stored value (e.g. 11) is incremented again generating a new value (e.g. 12). As such, the incrementing of a seed register (i.e. value) is the same as generating a seed value. (Ans. 5). Appellants further contend "Even if, for the sake of argument, the applied references are combined as proposed by the Examiner, and Appellants do not agree that the requisite basis for the asserted motivation has been established, the invention defined in independent claims 1 and 11 would not result." (App. Br. 6). In response to Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not set forth a proper motivation for the combination, the Examiner maintains that Appellants' argument is a general allegation for patentability, and Appellants are arguing the references separately. The Examiner further maintains the motivation for the combination "would have been to provide a new and unique identifier upon each request thereby preventing collisions by identifiers with the same value." (Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner. Additionally, the Examiner maintains: Reynolds teaches that the manufacturing of the identity device includes storing the seed identity or in an alternative embodiment the seed identity is included with a secure identity card to later be installed. The manufacture of a device is an initialization of the device and in order for the seed identity to be stored it must be generated in response to this manufacture (i.e. initialization). 5 Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 Therefore, Reynolds teaches generating seed values in response to an initialization. Additionally, Minami teaches that the seed register (i.e. seed value) is incremented (i.e. generated) for each request. As such, in response to a first request (i.e. a first time use) a first seed value is generated. Therefore, the combination teaches generating seed values in response to a first time use, an initialization, or a combination thereof. (Ans. 7). As a result, we agree with the Examiner that the proffered combination of the Reynolds and Minami references would have taught or suggested the invention recited in the language of representative independent claim 1. Moreover, because Appellants' argument does not show error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of obviousness, we sustain the rejection of representative independent claim 1 and independent claim 11 not argued separately. Appellants' reiterate similar arguments in the Reply Brief. (Reply Br. 3-7). We again find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1. With respect to dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, and 16, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 11. (App. Br. 7). Additionally, Appellants set forth a separate argument for claims 2 and 12. (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend the Reynolds reference does not teach generating a seed value. (App. Br. 7). We disagree with Appellants and find the mere fact that a seed is present necessarily indicates that it was generated. We note the language of dependent claim 2 does not set forth any limitations regarding how or when the seed is generated. Consequently, Appellants' argument does not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. 6 Appeal2014-001187 Application 13/099,677 With respect to dependent claims 3, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, and 17-20, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 11. (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 8-9). Since we found Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive with respect to independent claims 1 and 11, we similarly find those arguments to be unpersuasive for the dependent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims rejecting claims 1-20 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. 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