Ex Parte Tuchman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2018

13085397 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/085,397 04/12/2011
8791 7590 05/16/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth D. Tuchman
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.
9092P001 2061
EXAMINER
FISHER, PAUL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2018 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):
FIP _Group@bstz.com
PTO.MAIL@BSTZPTO.COM
PTO.MAIL@BSTZ.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH D. TUCHMAN, BRUCE A. SHARPE,
HENRY D. TRUONG, and ALAN B. RAHN
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20 and 24--26. Claims 21-23 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to product registration, in which a user
registers a product at a support center using a machine-readable code. The
product information stored in a user asset store associated with the user and
is utilized subsequently for supporting the identified product. (Spec. i-f 9.)
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary with
disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for registering and
providing technical support of products, the method comprising:
receiving, at a server running on server hardware having a
processor and memory, a first request from a user for registering a
first product, the first request including a first machine-readable code
that uniquely represents the first product, wherein the first machine-
readable code is received from a mobile application running within a
mobile device of the user and the first machine-readable code is
obtained by scanning the first machine-readable code from the first
product the user has acquired using a scanner or camera of the mobile
device, wherein the first machine-readable code includes at least one
of a quick-read (QR) code, a universal product code (UPC), and a
barcode of the first product;
identifying by a registration module executed by the processor
of the server the first product and compiling product information
based on the first machine-readable code without requiring the user to
specifically provide the product information, including
identifying a manufacturer of the first product based on
the first machine-readable code,
2
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
transmitting via first application programming interface
(API) a second request for product information to a first remote
backend system associated with the identified manufacturer,
receiving via the first API the product information from
the first remote backend system in response to the second
request, wherein the product information includes a serial
number of the first product and a manufacturer identifier (ID)
identifying the manufacturer of the first product, and
storing in a product database at least a portion of the
product information of the first product, the product database
storing product information of a plurality of products provided
by a plurality of product providers;
identifying a retailer from which the first product was
purchased based on the first machine-readable code;
transmitting via a second AP I a third request for purchase
information to a second remote backend system associated with the
retailer;
receiving via the second AP I purchase information of the first
product from the second remote backend system, wherein the
purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which
the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifYing a
transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the
transaction;
storing in a client database at least a portion of the purchase
information of the first product, the client database storing client
information of the plurality of product providers;
storing product registration information of the first product in a
user asset store associated with the user, the product registration
information including the product information and the purchase
information of the product, wherein the user asset store is part of a
user account associated with the user to store information of all
products that have been registered with the server by the user;
receiving from the user a list of one or more communications
channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated
with the server for technical support of the first product;
3
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
storing the list of communications channels in a user profile of
the user to be associated with the first product;
in response to a fourth request for a live support received from
the mobile application running within the mobile device of the user,
identifying, by a support service module executed by the processor,
the first product based on the fourth request;
retrieving the product information and purchase information of
the first product from the user asset store;
generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a
touch plan based on the product information of the first product and
purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset
store;
retrieving the list of one or more communication channels
associated with the first product from the user profile of the user;
transmitting the list of the communication channels to the
mobile application of the mobile device, wherein the list of
communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user
profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent;
in response to a selection of one of the communication channels
received from the mobile application of the mobile device,
establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live
communication session between the mobile device and a support
agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel; and
routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the
support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with
information of the user and relevant information of the first product,
wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the
first product, purchase information of the first product, and history
data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between
the user and the support agent during the live communication session.
(Br. 110-112.)
4
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Examiner's Rejections & References
(1) Claims 1-20 and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
(2) Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman et al. (US 2001/0053980 Al; Dec. 20,
2001), Attia et al. (US 2005/0011957 Al; Jan. 20, 2005), Rogers et al. (US
2004/0006514 Al; Jan. 8, 2004), Clayton (US 2005/0266825 Al; Dec. 1,
2005), Shafrir et al. (US 7,103,846 Bl; Sept. 5, 2006), and Gumbula
(2008/0232575 Al; Sept. 25, 2008).
(3) Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, and
Paas et al. (US 2007/0271527 Al; Nov. 22, 2007).
(4) Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula,
Paas, and Spreen et al. (US 8,032,427 B 1; Oct. 4, 2011 ).
(5) Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas,
Spreen, and Jones (US 2006/0095320 Al; May 4, 2006).
(6) Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas,
Spreen, Jones, and Hayward et al. (US 2003/0023703 Al; Jan. 30, 2003).
(7) Claim 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Benoy
et al. (US 6,896,618 B2; May 24, 2005), and MacLean et al. (US
2011/0004558 Al; Jan. 6, 2011).
5
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
(8) Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula,
Benoy, MacLean, and Marriott (Marriott International, Marriott Rewards
Programs Information at Marriott.com (2006)).
ANALYSIS
§ 1 OJ Rejection
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 24--41) that
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 as statutory
subject matter.
The Examiner found that
the claims are directed towards registering products and product
support which is considered to be an abstract idea inasmuch as
collect and storing product information and allowing the user to
contact a service provider based on that stored information are
activities that are considered both fundamental economic or
business practices
and "the claims currently collect, store, compare and transmit information."
(Final Act. 3.) Moreover, the Examiner found that
[t ]he elements in the instant claims (computer, server, mobile
device, database, backend, medium, processor and memory),
when taken in combination, together do not offer "significantly
more" than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not
recite an improvement to another technology or technical field,
an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or
provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
(Id. at 3--4.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
A patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
6
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this "provision
contains an important implicit exception: [l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 67 (1972) ("Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental
processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are
the basic tools of scientific and technological work."). Notwithstanding that
a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application
of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72 (2012).
In Mayo, the Court stated that "to transform an unpatentable law of nature
into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than
simply state the law of nature while adding the words 'apply it."' Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72 (internal citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth
previously in Mayo "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If the claims are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider
the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to
determine whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature
of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79, 78). In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive
concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to
7
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (brackets in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must
include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. at 2357
(brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78). The prohibition
against patenting an abstract idea "cannot be circumvented by attempting to
limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or
adding insignificant post-solution activity." Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593,
610-11 (2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court in
Alice noted that "' [ s ]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high
level of generality,' was not 'enough' [in Mayo] to supply an 'inventive
concept."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82-83, 77-
78, 72-73).
Alice Step one: Are the claims at issue
directed to a patent-ineligible concept?
Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method claim, which includes the
steps of: (i) "receiving ... a first request from a user for registering a first
product ... including a first machine-readable code that uniquely represents
the first product"; (ii) "identifying ... product information based on the first
machine-readable code ... transmitting ... product information ...
receiving ... product information ... wherein the product information
includes a serial number of the first product and a manufacturer identifier
(ID) identifying the manufacturer of the first product ... storing ... at least
a portion of the product information of the first product"; (iii) "identifying a
retailer from which the first product was purchased based on the first
8
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
machine-readable code ... transmitting ... purchase information ...
receiving ... purchase information of the first product ... wherein the
purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first
product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of
purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction"; (iv) "storing ...
at least a portion of the purchase information of the first product";
(v) "storing product registration information of the first product ... the
product registration information including the product information and the
purchase information of the product"; (vi) "receiving from the user a list of
one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a
support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first
product ... storing the list of communications channels in a user profile of
the user to be associated with the first product"; (vii) "transmitting the list of
the communication channels ... wherein the list of communication channels
are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to
communicate with a live support agent"; and (viii) "a live communication
session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized
for the first product using the selected communication channel ... routing ..
. information of the user and relevant information of the first product ...
further includes the product information of the first product, purchase
information of the first product, and history data of the user, and ... further
records activities between the user and the support agent during the live
communication session."
Each of the method steps of claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract idea because such step is either: ( 1) "a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce," Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
9
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
2356, or (2) collecting, analyzing, and storing data, see, e.g., Elec. Power
Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a process of
gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying
the results" is "directed to an abstract idea"); Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("collecting data, ... recognizing certain data within
the collected data set, and ... storing that recognized data in a memory" is
an abstract idea); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., 555 F.
App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("the claim at issue here involves a mental
process excluded from section 101 : the mental steps of comparing new and
stored information and using rules to identify medical options").
For example, the steps of: (i) "receiving ... a first request from a user
for registering a first product ... including a first machine-readable code
that uniquely represents the first product"; (vi) "receiving from the user a list
of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a
support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first
product . . . storing the list of communications channels in a user profile of
the user to be associated with the first product"; (vii) "transmitting the list of
the communication channels ... wherein the list of communication channels
are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to
communicate with a live support agent"; and (viii) "a live communication
session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized
for the first product using the selected communication channel ... routing
... information of the user and relevant information of the first product ...
further includes the product information of the first product, purchase
information of the first product, and history data of the user, and ... further
10
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
records activities between the user and the support agent during the live
communication session" are abstract concepts related "a fundamental
economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce"-warranty
registration for purchased items having a universal product code (UPC) and
technical support (e.g., phone or Internet communications with a live
operator). See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. Moreover, the remaining steps of:
(ii) "identifying ... product information based on the first machine-readable
code ... transmitting ... product information ... receiving ... product
information ... wherein the product information includes a serial number of
the first product and a manufacturer identifier (ID) identifying the
manufacturer of the first product ... storing ... at least a portion of the
product information of the first product"; (iii) "identifying a retailer from
which the first product was purchased based on the first machine-readable
code ... transmitting purchase information ... receiving ... purchase
information of the first product ... wherein the purchase information
includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was
purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first
product, and a date of the transaction"; (iv) "storing ... at least a portion of
the purchase information of the first product"; and (v) "storing product
registration information of the first product ... the product registration
information including the product information and the purchase information
of the product" are abstract concepts related to the collection, analysis, and
storage of data on a database. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353;
Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; SmartGene, 555 F. App'x at 955.
Claim 9, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim,
and claim 24, a data processing system claim, recite limitations similar to
11
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
those discussed with respect to claim 1. Thus, claims 9 and 24 are also
directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Alice Step two: Is there something else in the claims
that ensures that they are directed to significantly
more than a patent-ineligible concept?
Because claims 1, 9, and 24 are directed to an abstract idea, the
question is whether these claims recite an element, or combination of
elements, that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly
more than an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method claim, which includes "a
server running on [a] server hardware having a processor and memory," "a
scanner or camera of the mobile device," "remote back end system,"
"product database," and "client database." Claim 9, a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium claim, and claim 24, a data processing
system claim, recite similar computer hardware limitations. The claimed
hardware components, including "a server running on a server hardware
having a processor and memory," "a scanner or camera of the mobile
device," "remote backend system," "product database," and "client
database" are generic, purely conventional computer elements. Thus, the
claims do no more than require generic computer elements to perform
generic computer functions, rather than improve computer capabilities.
Accordingly, appending a conventional "server running on [a] server
hardware having a processor and memory," "scanner or camera of the
mobile device," "remote backend system," "product database," and "client
database" to an abstract idea is not enough to transform an abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere
12
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention.").
First, Appellants argue that "the Office Action fails to specifically
point out factual evidence that supports a finding that claims 1, 9, and 17 are
directed to an abstract idea" (Br. 25) because
the Examiner has engaged in impermissible piecemeal analysis
in evaluating the claims for subject matter eligibility and states
that the claims are "directed towards registering products and
product support which is considered to be an abstract idea" -
without identifying the relevant factors considered or providing
any specific factual evidence to support this conclusion
(id. at 25-26) and
the Office Action simply states the claims are directed to "an
abstract idea inasmuch as collect and storing product information
and allowing the user to contact service provider based on that
stored information are activities that are considered both
fundamental economic or business practices, methods of
organizing human activity, an idea of itself, and a mathematical
relationship or formula" - without identifying the specific
limitations considered or any tangible support or rationale to
support this conclusion as to why the alleged abstract idea
qualifies as fundamental economic or business practices, method
of organizing human activity, an idea of itself, and/or a
mathematical relationship or formula
(id. at 26 (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously, with
respect to identifying a patent-ineligible concept, the Examiner correctly
identified the appropriate judicial exceptions as "a fundamental economic
practice," in addition to collecting, analyzing, and storing data, under part
one of the Alice test. (Final Act. 3.) Appellants are improperly conflating
part one of the Alice test with part two of the Alice test, which includes
consideration of an element or combination of elements to determine if the
claim recites "additional features."
13
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Second, Appellants argue that "the Office Action merely states the
claims 'do not offer "significantly more" than the abstract ideas itself' -
without identifying the specific limitations considered or any tangible
support or rationale as to why these limitations, as a whole, are not enough
to qualify as improvements and therefore 'significantly more.'" (Br. 26-27
(emphases omitted).) Similarly, Appellants argue that "the Examiner should
consider elements of each claim, both 'individually' and 'as an ordered
combination,' for purposes of determining whether the elements in the
claims are directed to 'something more' and are thereby transformed
into a patent-eligible invention" and "the Examiner has engaged in
impermissible piecemeal analysis in evaluating the claims for subject matter
eligibility and has therefore not considered each of claims 1, 9, and 1 7 as a
whole." (Br. 28.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner found
that "[t ]he elements in the instant claims (computer, server, mobile device,
database, backend, medium, processor and memory), when taken in
combination, together do not offer 'significantly more' than the abstract idea
itself." (Final Act. 3--4). Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the
computer hardware limitations recited in claim 1 as an ordered combination.
Third, Appellants argue that "[t]he Office Action incorrectly
compared claims 1, 9, and 17 to the claims of SmartGene that hold no
precedence because its ruling was prior to the Alice Corp. determination and
other more recent federal circuit cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., .. , which is analogous to claims 1, 9, and 17 as being
directed to statutory eligible subject matter by 'expanding commercial
opportunities for internet websites."' (Br. 27 (emphases omitted).)
However, other than merely citing generalized conclusion statements from
14
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
DDR, Appellants do not explain how this case pertains to claims 1, 9, and
24.
Fourth, Appellants argue that "[i]n Alice, four examples of abstract
ideas were referenced: fundamental economic practices; certain methods of
organizing human activities; abstract ideas themselves; and mathematical
relationships and mathematical formulas" (Br. 28) and accordingly,
Appellants argue, "the present claims, as a whole, provide a user with a one-
touch platform for registering and providing technical support of products
with minimal inconvenience by establishing and outputting a live
communication session between a mobile device and a support agent based
on a touch plan that is generated to provide the agent with information of the
user and product- which is not an intangible, abstract idea" (id. at 28-29;
see also id. at 31-32, 35-36, 37-38.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, as
discussed previously, abstract concepts such as "a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce" include warranty
registration for purchased items having a UPC and technical support (e.g.,
communications with a live operator). See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
Last, Appellants argue that "[a]lthough claim 1 does recite providing a
user with a one-touch platform for registering and providing technical
support of products, the Office Action ignores other meaningful limitations."
(Br. 29.) In particular, Appellants argue that "the result of claim 1 is to
output 'a live communication session' between a mobile device and a
support agent based on a touch plan that is generated to provide the agent
with information of the user and product - which is a tangible non-abstract
outcome" and "claim 1 also includes receiving 'a first machine-readable
code that uniquely represents the first product, wherein ... the first machine-
15
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
readable code is obtained by scanning the first machine-readable code from
the first product the user has acquired using a scanner or camera of the
mobile device' - which can also be considered a tangible non-abstract
limitation." (Br. 29; see also id. at 39--40.) However, Appellants do not
adequately explained why the claim "purport[ s] to improve the functioning
of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2359. In particular, Appellants have not explained why the
"live communication session" and "first machine-readable code" limitations,
both of which are fundamental economic practices, improve the function of
a computer or other technology.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 9, and 1 7 are directed
towards non-statutory subject matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 24--26 depend
from independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain
the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and
17.
§ 103 Rejection---Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton,
Shafrir, and Gumbula
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 66----67, 75)
that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and
Gumbula would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitations "receiving from the user a list of one or more
16
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent
associated with the server for technical support of the first product,"
"transmitting the list of the communication channels to the mobile
application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication channels
are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to
communicate with a live support agent," and "in response to a selection of
one of the communication channels received from the mobile application of
the mobile device, establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a
live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent
who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication
channel."
The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman,
in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and the product
registration database of Suliman, collectively correspond to the limitations
"to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support
of the first product," "session between the mobile device and a support agent
who is specialized for the first product," and "the mobile application of the
mobile device." (Final Act. 5-7, 24.) The Examiner further found that the
status indicator for network users of Shafrir corresponds to the limitations
"receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels
preferred by the user," "transmitting the list of the communication channels
... wherein the list of communication channels are preferred," and "in
response to a selection of one of the communication channels ...
establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live
communication session ... using the selected communication channel."
(Final Act. 22-23; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t
17
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of
Suliman the ability allow the user to tailor the communications channels to
those the user prefers as shown in Shafrir since the claimed invention is
merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 24; see also Ans. 74--
75.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Suliman relates to "electronic collection and utilization of product
warranty registration information." (i-f 2.) Suliman explains that the
registration system can be linked to service organizations, such that
"[ c ]onsumers can schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered
products with local service organizations at the touch of a button." (i-f 14.)
Suliman also explains that "consumer device 50 is used to electronically
receive the product information and communicate that product information
to the product registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), which includes a consumer
profile (i-fi-f 65---67). Suliman further explains that consumer device 50 can be
a wireless telephone. (i-f 42.) Thus, because Suliman explains that the
warranty registration system of Suliman permits consumers to schedule
repairs and maintenance for their registered products, Suliman teaches the
limitation "to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical
support of the first product," and "session between the mobile device and a
support agent who is specialized for the first product." Moreover, because
Suliman explains that consumers can use consumer device 50 (e.g., a
wireless phone) to communicate with product registration database 20,
Suliman teaches the limitation "the mobile application of the mobile
device."
Shafrir relates to "presenting a user status indicator for network users
on the system and establish communications with network users through the
18
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
user status indicator." (Col. 1, 11. 18-21.) In particular, Shafrir explains that
"[t]he network user may set a communication options preference so that
communication options are presented to a network user in the following
order: 1) electronic mail; 2) chat; 3) audiovisual call; 4) page; 5) facsimile."
(Col. 6, 11. 8-12.) Because Shafrir explains that the network user can set
communications options preferences, Shafrir teaches the limitations
"receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels
preferred by the user," "transmitting the list of the communication channels
... wherein the list of communication channels are preferred," "in response
to a selection of one of the communication channels ... establishing, by a
multi-channel communication system," and "a live communication session
... using the selected communication channel."
The combination of Suliman and Shafrir is nothing more than
incorporating the known communication options preference of Shafrir with
the known warranty registration system of Suliman, to yield predictable
results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). In particular,
the combination of Suliman and Shafrir incorporates the communications
options preferences of Shafrir into the consumer device 50 of Suliman,
which communicates with product registration database 20, and can be used
to schedule repairs and maintenance. Accordingly, the combination of
Suliman and Shafrir teaches the limitations "receiving from the user a list of
one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a
support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first
product," "transmitting the list of the communication channels to the mobile
19
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication channels
are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to
communicate with a live support agent," and
in response to a selection of one of the communication channels
received from the mobile application of the mobile device,
establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live
communication session between the mobile device and a support
agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel.
Appellants argue that "Suliman specifically lacks any disclosure that
teaches or suggest 'receiving from the user a list of one or more
communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent
associated with the server for technical support of the first product,' as set
forth in claim 1" (Br. 66 (emphasis omitted)) and
Suliman discloses a webpage that offers various links where a
user can find, for example, auctions sites or organizations that
can service and repair the user's product - not a list of one or
more communication channels preferred by the user that offer a
one-touch platform to contact a live support agent for technical
support of the user's products
(id. at 66----67 (emphasis omitted)). However, as discussed previously, the
Examiner cited to Shafrir, rather than Suliman, for teaching the limitation
"receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels
preferred by the user." (Final Act. 24.)
Appellants further argue that
Shafrir discloses a collaborative application with indicators of
concurrent users that may communication [sic] with each other -
not receiving/transmitting/establishing a live communication
session between a user's mobile device and a support agent, who
is specialized on the registered product, using a selected
communication channel from a list of one or more
communication channels, which are preferred/based on a user
20
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
profile, to provide the user with technical support of the
registered product.
(Br. 76.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited to Suliman,
rather than Shafrir, for teaching the limitations "to contact a support agent
associated with the server for technical support of the first product," "the
mobile application of the mobile device," and "session between the mobile
device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." The
rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers,
Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman,
Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "receiving from the user
a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to
contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of
the first product," "transmitting the list of the communication channels to the
mobile application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication
channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to
communicate with a live support agent," and
in response to a selection of one of the communication channels
received from the mobile application of the mobile device,
establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live
communication session between the mobile device and a support
agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel.
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 70) that
the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula
21
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request for purchase
information to a second remote backend system associated with the retailer,"
"receiving via the second API purchase information of the first product from
the second remote backend system, wherein the purchase information
includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was
purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first
product, and a date of the transaction," and "a live communication session
between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the
first product using the selected communication channel."
The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman,
in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and product
registration database 20 of Suliman, which communicates with consumer
device 50 to electronically receive the product information, collectively
correspond to the limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request
for purchase information to a second remote backend system associated with
the retailer," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the first
product from the second remote backend system," and "session between the
mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product
using the selected communication channel." (Final Act. 5-8; see also
Ans. 73.) The Examiner also found that the user status indicator of Shafrir,
which provides the user with communication options, corresponds to the
limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected
communication channel." (Final Act. 21-22; see also Ans. 74--75.) The
Examiner further found that electronic registration system of Rodgers
corresponds to the limitation "purchase information ... wherein the
22
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first
product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of
purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction." (Final Act. 15-
16; see also Ans. 74.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been
obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the
ability allow the user to tailor the communications channels to those the user
prefers as shown in Shafrir since the claimed invention is merely a
combination of old elements." (Final Act. 24; see also Ans. 74--75.) The
Examiner further concluded that
It would have been obvious ... to include in the product
registration system of Suliman the ability obtain purchase
information from the machine code by identifying the retailer
where the product was purchased and obtaining the information
from the retailer systems as shown in Rogers since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements.
(Final Act. 16.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
As discussed previously, Suliman explains that "[c]onsumers can
schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local
service organizations at the touch of a button" (i-f 14). Suliman also explains
that "consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product
information and communicate that product information to the product
registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), such that product registration database 20
includes product type, manufacturer, and serial number (i-f 54). Suliman
further explains that consumer device 50 can be a wireless telephone.
(i-f 42.) Figure 8 of Suliman illustrates a screen shot of an account summary
web page (i-f 25), such that "server 15 of the registration system 10 generates
an account summary page 800 accessible through network 200'' (i-f 62).
Because Suliman explains that server 15 of the registration system 10
23
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
communicates with consumer device 50 to electronically receive product
registration database 20, Suliman teaches the limitations "transmitting via a
second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote
backend system," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the
first product from the second remote backend system," and "session between
the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product
using the selected communication channel."
Also discussed previously, Shafrir explains that "[t]he network user
may set a communication options preference so that communication options
are presented to a network user in the following order: 1) electronic mail;
2) chat; 3) audiovisual call." (Col. 6, 11. 8-11.) Because Shafrir explains
that one of the communications options is "chat," Shafrir teaches the
limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected
communication channel."
Rogers relates to "[a]n electronic registration system which facilitates
authorized product returns." (Abstract.) In particular, Rogers explains that
with respect to the electronic registration system, "individual product
identification information (such as a serial number) is stored in a local
transaction database along with additional information including at least the
date of the transaction" and that "local transaction database may include, for
example, sales made by a particular store or sales made by several affiliated
stores and is not necessarily co-located with the point of sale." (i-f 10.)
Because Rogers explains that the electronic registration system includes
transaction date, serial number, and sale made at a particular store, Rogers
teaches the limitations "purchase information" and "wherein the purchase
information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product
24
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the
first product, and a date of the transaction."
The combination of Suliman, Shafrir, and Rogers is nothing more than
incorporating the known electronic registration system of Rogers with the
known warranty registration system of Suliman, as modified by Shafrir, to
yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In particular, the
combination of Suliman and Shafrir would incorporate the communications
options preferences of Shafrir into the consumer device 50 of Suliman,
which communicates with product registration database 20, and can be used
to schedule repairs and maintenance. Thus, the combination of Suliman and
Shafrir teaches the limitation "a live communication session between the
mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product
using the selected communication channel."
Appellants argue that
[Rogers] discloses a product registration system for a retail store
that may search a manufacturer database to determine warranty
product information but does not disclose
transmitting/receiving via an application program interface
(API) a request for purchase information to a proper remote
backend system, including a transaction ID identifying a
transaction of purchasing the respective product, that can be used
during a live communication session between a technical support
agent and a mobile device user.
(Br. 70 (emphasis omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Suliman,
rather than Rogers, for teaching the limitations "transmitting via a second
API a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend
system associated with the retailer," "receiving via the second API purchase
information of the first product from the second remote backend system,
wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from
25
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a
transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction,"
and "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is
specialized for the first product." (Final Act. 5-8.) Moreover, the Examiner
cited to Shafrir, rather than Rogers, for teaching the limitation "a live
communication session ... using the selected communication channel."
(Final Act. 22.) Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination
of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman,
Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "transmitting via a
second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote
backend system associated with the retailer," "receiving via the second API
purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend
system, wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer
from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a
transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction,"
and "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support
agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel."
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 73-74) that
the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a
26
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
touch plan based on the product information of the first product and
purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store"
and
routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the
support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with
information of the user and relevant information of the first
product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product
information of the first product, purchase information of the first
product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further
records activities between the user and the support agent during
the live communication session.
The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman,
in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and the product
registration database of Suliman, collectively correspond to the limitation
"based on the product information of the first product and purchase
information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store." (Final
Act. 19-20; see also id. at 5-7.) The Examiner also found that the customer
interaction record of Gumbula corresponds to the limitation "wherein the
touch plan further includes the product information of the first product,
purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and
the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support
agent during the live communication session." (Final Act. 25-26; see also
Ans. 77-78.) The Examiner further found that the mobile device
notification of Clayton having a "call now" button corresponds to the
limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor"
and "routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support
agent." (Final Act. 18-19; see also Ans. 80.) The Examiner concluded that
"[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration
system of Suliman the ability to record activities between the service agent
27
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
and the caller during the service call as shown in Gumbula since the claimed
invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 26-27.)
The Examiner further concluded that
It would have been obvious ... to include in the product
registration system of Suliman the ability [to] generate a plan of
product information which is then provided to the service agent
upon an initial service request as shown in Clayton since the
claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements.
(Final Act. 20.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
As discussed previously, Suliman explains that the registration system
can be linked to service organizations, such that "[ c ]onsumers can schedule
repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local service
organizations at the touch of a button." (i-f 14.) Suliman further explains that
"consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product
information and communicate that product information to the product
registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), such that product registration database 20
including product type, manufacturer, and serial number (i-f 54). Thus,
Suliman teaches the limitations "based on the product information of the
first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the
user asset store."
Clayton relates to "[ n ]otifying users of mobile communication
devices, which may include providing options for response to notifications."
(Abstract.) Figure 8 of Clayton illustrates an example of a notification
originating from a source external to the communication service provider
(i-f 12), for example, a user being notified of nearing a credit-line threshold
for a credit card account (i-f 51). In particular, Clayton explains that "[t]he
user is also given three additional options: the user can call the credit card
company by selecting a button 802 associated with a 'call now' option."
28
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
(Id.) Because the mobile communication device of Clayton includes a
button with a "call now" option, Clayton teaches the limitation "generating,
by a touch plan engine executed by the processor" and "routing, by a case
management module, the touch plan to the support agent."
Gumbula relates to call centers, in particular, "processing calls in call
centers wherein a caller's matter is handled by more than one agent" (i-f l ),
such that "the caller's matter may be handled by multiple agents without
requiring that the caller repeat information to agents" (i-f 8). Figure 3 of
Gumbula illustrates a customer interaction record (CIR) (i-f 12), which
includes: (i) field 310, the caller's name, address, and telephone number;
(ii) field 320, items purchased by the caller and the dates of purchase;
(iii) field 320, the status of any warranties on the items purchased; and
(iv) field 330 records of previous interactions that the connected caller
(i-f 23). Because Gumbula explains that the CIR includes caller information,
items with dates of purchase, and previous caller interaction, Gumbula
teaches the limitation "the product information of the first product, purchase
information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch
plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during
the live communication session."
The combination of Suliman, Gumbula, and Clayton, is nothing more
than incorporating known customer interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula
and the known mobile device notification of Clayton having a "call now"
button, with the known warranty registration system of Suliman, to yield
predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In particular, the combination
of Suliman, Gumbula, and Clayton would incorporate the "call now" option
button of Clayton with the registration system of Suliman, having product
29
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
registration database 20 and accordingly, teaches the limitation "generating,
by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a touch plan based on the
product information of the first product and purchase information of the first
product retrieved from the user asset store." Moreover, the combination of
Suliman, Gumbula, and Clayton would incorporate the "call now" option
button of Clayton with the customer interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula,
and thus, teaches the limitation
routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the
support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with
information of the user and relevant information of the first
product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product
information of the first product, purchase information of the first
product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further
records activities between the user and the support agent during
the live communication session.
Appellants argue that:
[a ]t best, Clayton discloses a mobile device notification
with options where a user may receive a notification that the user
is reaching his/her minutes-of-use or credit card limit, then the
notification provides the user with some options, such as 1) being
directed to manually call the telephone/credit card company, or
2) a button associated with a "call now" option that if selected
calls the respective company directly (i.e., the button is only used
to make a "call now" and the button is not based on a product, let
alone based on product and purchase information associated with
a registered product that was purchased by a user), and thus the
user selects one button associated with one of the provided
options.
(Br. 73-74 (emphasis omitted).) Accordingly, Appellants argue,
Clayton does not disclose generating a touch plan that includes
product and purchase information of a registered product
retrieved from a user asset store, and then routing the touch plan
to a live support agent, which provides the support agent with the
user's personal information and relevant information of the
30
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
registered product, such as product information, purchase
information, and history of the user, in order to provide the user
with specialized technical support of the registered product.
(Id. at 74 (citation omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Suliman,
rather than Clayton, for teaching the limitation "based on the product
information of the first product and purchase information of the first product
retrieved from the user asset store" (Final Act. 19-20) and cited to Gumbula,
rather than Clayton, for teaching the limitation "further includes the product
information of the first product, purchase information of the first product,
and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities
between the user and the support agent during the live communication
session" (id. at 25-26). Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the
combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and
Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually. See Keller, 642 F .2d at 426.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman,
Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "generating, by a touch
plan engine executed by the processor, a touch plan based on the product
information of the first product and purchase information of the first product
retrieved from the user asset store" and
routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the
support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with
information of the user and relevant information of the first
product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product
information of the first product, purchase information of the first
product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further
records activities between the user and the support agent during
the live communication session.
31
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 78-79) that
the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations "a live communication session between the mobile device and a
support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel" and "wherein the touch plan further includes the
product information of the first product, purchase information of the first
product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records
activities between the user and the support agent during the live
communication session."
The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman,
in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and the product
registration database of Suliman, collectively correspond to the limitation
"session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized
for the first product." (Final Act. 19-20; see also id. at 5-7.) The Examiner
also found that the user status indicator of Shafrir, which provides the user
with communication options, corresponds to the limitation "a live
communication session ... using the selected communication channel."
(Final Act. 22; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner further found that the
mobile device notification of Clayton having a "call now" button
corresponds to the limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed
by the processor." (Final Act. 18-19; see also Ans. 80.) In addition, the
Examiner found that the customer interaction record of Gumbula
corresponds to the limitation "the product information of the first product,
purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and
the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support
32
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
agent during the live communication session." (Final Act. 25-26; see also
Ans. 77-78.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious
... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability allow
the user to tailor the communications channels to those the user prefers as
shown in Shafrir since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old
elements." (Final Act. 24; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner also
concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product
registration system of Suliman the ability to record activities between the
service agent and the caller during the service call as shown in Gumbula
since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final
Act. 26-27.) The Examiner further concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product
registration system of Suliman the ability generate a plan of
product information which is then provided to the service agent
upon an initial service request as shown in Clayton since the
claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements.
(Final Act. 20.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
As discussed previously, Suliman explains that the registration system
can be linked to service organizations, such that "[ c ]onsumers can schedule
repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local service
organizations at the touch of a button." (i-f 14.) Suliman further explains that
"consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product
information and communicate that product information to the product
registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), such product registration database 20
including product type, manufacturer, and serial number (i-f 54). Suliman
explains that such consumer device 50 includes "other portable
communication device such as a ... wireless or wired telephone." (i-f 42.)
Thus, Suliman teaches the limitations "session between the mobile device
33
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel."
Also discussed previously, Shafrir relates to "presenting a user status
indicator for network users on the system and establish communications
with network users through the user status indicator." (Col. 1, 11. 18-21.)
Shafrir explains that "[t]he network user may set a communication options
preference so that communication options are presented to a network user in
the following order: 1) electronic mail; [and] 2) chat" (col. 6, 11. 8-11).
Because Shafrir explains that one of the communications options is "chat,"
Shafrir teaches the limitation "a live communication session ... using the
selected communication channel."
Also discussed previously, Figure 8 of Clayton illustrates an example
of a notification originating from a source external to the communication
service provider (i-f 12), for example, a user being notified of nearing a
credit-line threshold for a credit card account (i-f 51 ). In particular, Clayton
explains that "[t]he user is also given three additional options: the user can
call the credit card company by selecting a button 802 associated with a 'call
now' option." (Id.) Because the mobile communication device of Clayton
includes a button with a "call now" option, Clayton teaches the limitation
"generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor."
Also discussed previously, Figure 3 of Gumbula illustrates a customer
interaction record (CIR) (i-f 12), which includes: (i) field 310, the caller's
name, address, and telephone number; (ii) field 320, items purchased by the
caller and the dates of purchase; (iii) field 320, the status of any warranties
on the items purchased; and (iv) field 330 records of previous interactions
that the connected caller (i-f 23). Because Gumbula explains that the CIR
34
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
includes caller information, items with dates of purchase and previous caller
interaction, Gumbula teaches the limitation "the product information of the
first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of
the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and
the support agent during the live communication session."
The combination of Suliman, Shafrir, Clayton, and Gumbula, is
nothing more than incorporating the known communication options
preference of Shafrir, the known mobile communication device of Clayton
having a button with a "call now" option, and the known customer
interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula with the known warranty registration
system of Suliman, to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
In particular, the combination of Suliman and Shafrir would incorporate the
communications options preferences of Shafrir into the consumer device 50
of Suliman, which communicates with product registration database 20, and
can be used to schedule repairs and maintenance, and accordingly, teaches
the limitation "a live communication session between the mobile device and
a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected
communication channel." Moreover, the combination of Clayton and
Gumbula would result in a mobile communication device of Clayton having
a button with a "call now" option, such that customer interaction record
(CIR) of Gumbula would include caller information, items with dates of
purchase and previous caller interaction, and accordingly, teaches the
limitation "wherein the touch plan further includes the product information
of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history
data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the
user and the support agent during the live communication session."
35
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Appellants argue that:
[a ]t best, Gumbula discloses a context recovery for call center
agents that provides voice recordings of a prior agent to a
subsequent agent - not establishing a live communication
session between a user's mobile device and a support agent, who
is specialized on the registered product and thus no recordings or
forwarding of calls is required), and routing a touch plan, which
includes user information, product information, purchase
information, history data of the user, and live activities between
the user and support agent during the live communication
session, to provide the user with specialized technical support of
the registered product.
(Br. 78-79 (emphasis omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Suliman,
rather than Gumbula, for teaching the limitation "session between the mobile
device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." (Final
Act. 19-20.) Moreover, the Examiner cited to Shafrir, rather than Gumbula
for teaching the limitation "a live communication session ... using the
selected communication channel" (Final Act. 22) and cited to Clayton, rather
than Gumbula, for teaching the limitation "a touch plan engine" (id. at 18-
19). Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Suliman,
Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See Keller, 642
F.2d at 426.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman,
Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "a live communication
session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized
for the first product using the selected communication channel" and
"product information of the first product, purchase information of the first
product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records
36
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
activities between the user and the support agent during the live
communication session."
Although Appellants nominally argue that the Examiner's articulated
reasoning for combining Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and
Gumbula is erroneous (Br. 80-83), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why such reasoning is improper. Instead,
Appellants merely provide the following conclusory statements:
Given that each of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton,
Shafrir, and Gumbula is related to solving different problems and
their approaches are completely different, it logically follows
that there are no apparent reasons to combine these six references
in order to achieve each and every one of the disclosures set forth
in claim 1. In addition, one with ordinary skill in the art, based
on the teachings of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and
Gumbula, would not combine these references, because it lacks
reasonable expectation of success.
(Id. at 80-81 (emphasis omitted).)
The Examiner's proposed combination would not operate
unless some key features of at least one of the six different
elements disclosed by Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir,
and Gumbula were discarded from the combination. This would
require a change in the principle of operation of at least one of
Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula.
(Id. at 81 (emphases omitted).)
Accordingly, without additional explanation, Appellants have not
presented any persuasive arguments with respect to these claims. Moreover,
Appellants has not provided any evidence that the proposed combination
would be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Arguments of counsel
cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In
re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
37
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 1 7 for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 10, and 18
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 10, and 18 separately (Br. 83-86), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
the cited sections of Suliman disclose ... a webpage that offers
various links where a user can find, for example, auctions sites
or organizations that can service and repair the user's product -
but do not disclose generating a third list of communication
channels based on the first and second lists of communication
channels, where the third list of communication channels are
preferred by both the user and the first client, in order to off er the
user a one-touch platform to contact a live support agent for
technical support of the user's products, as set forth in claim 2.
(Id. at 84--85 (emphases omitted).)
the cited sections of Shafrir disclose . . . a collaborative
application with indicators of concurrent users that may
communication with each other - not generating a third list of
communication channels based on the first and second lists of
communication channels, where the third list of communication
channels are preferred by both the user and the first client, in
order to offer the user a one-touch platform to contact a live
support agent for technical support of the user's products, as set
forth in claim 2.
38
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
(Id. at 85 (emphases omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 2 are distinguishable over Suliman and Shafrir,
Appellants merely summarize each reference individually with a conclusory
statement that Suliman and Shafrir do not teach the features of this
dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 2. See In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Claims 10 and 18
recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 2. We are
not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
claims 1, 9, and 17, from which claims 2, 10, and 18 depend.
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 11, and 19 separately (Br. 86-90), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
the cited sections of Suliman disclose ... a webpage that offers
various links where a user can find, for example, auctions sites
or organizations that can service and repair the user's product-
but do not disclose generating a personalized page having
summarized information of at least the first product, the
personalized page including at least a portion of the product
information and purchase information of the first product, and
further including a first live support button to allow the user to
initiate a live support of the first product, and where the fourth
39
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
request for live support is received from the mobile application
in response to an activation of the first live support button
displayed within the personalized page, as set forth in claim 3.
(Id. at 88 (emphases omitted).)
the cited sections of Clayton . . . disclose a mobile device
notification with options where a user may receive a notification
that the user is reaching his/her minutes-of use or credit card
limit, then the notification provides the user with some options,
such as 1) being directed to manually call the telephone/credit
card company, or 2) a button associated with a "call now" option
that if selected calls the respective company directly (i.e., the
button is only used to make a "call now" and the button is not
based on a product, let alone based on product and purchase
information associated with a registered product that was
purchased by a user), and thus the user selects one button
associated with one of the provided options.
(Id. (emphases omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 3 are distinguishable over Suliman and Clayton,
Appellants merely summarize each reference individually with a conclusory
statement that Suliman and Clayton do not teach the features of this
dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 3. See Lovin, 652
F.3d at 1357. Claims 11 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 3. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, and 1 7, from which claims 3,
11, and 19 depend.
40
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
§ 103 Rejection---Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir,
Gumbula, and Paas
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 4 separately (App. Br. 90-92), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Paas discloses a system and method for home screen
interface integrating application and system status. Paas further
discloses a home screen user interface that provides application
slots for invoking application interfaces for data
communications, voice communication, and calendar functions,
such as the user's activities for that current day.
(Br. 91 (citations omitted).)
However, Paas lacks any disclosure that teaches or
suggests "accessing a product intelligence store to determine
whether there is a pending notification for a rebate, an offer to
upgrade, or a recall of the first product;" and "including in the
personalized page information of the pending notification,
including indicating a number of pending notifications available
for the first product, wherein the number of pending notification
is displayed within the personal page by the mobile application,"
as set forth in claim 4.
(Id. (emphases omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 4 are distinguishable over Paas, Appellants merely
summarize Paas with a conclusory statement that Paas does not teach the
features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 4. See
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claims 12 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 4. We are not persuaded by these arguments
41
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, and 1 7, from which
claims 4, 12, and 20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula,
Paas, and Spreen
Claims 5 and 13
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 5 separately (Br. 92-94 ), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claims are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Spreen discloses a system for providing localized
shopping information. Spreen further discloses product detail
page that may be provided to a user in response to a search for
local retailers carrying a desired product, and may further
provide some product and promotional information.
(Id. at 93 (citations omitted.))
However, Spreen lacks any disclosure that teaches or
suggests a method for registering and providing technical
support of products - let alone "determining a first resource
location storing a specification of the first product;" and
"including in the personalized page a first link corresponding to
the first resource location, wherein the first link, when activated
from the personalized page displayed by the mobile application,
is to access the specification of the first product from the first
resource location," as set forth in claim 5.
(Id. (emphases omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 5 are distinguishable over Spreen, Appellants merely
summarize Spreen with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach
the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 5. See
42
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Lovin, 65 2 F. 3 d at 13 5 7. Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 5. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which
claims 5 and 13 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Claims 6 and 14
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 6 separately (App. Br. 94--96), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Spreen discloses a system for providing localized
shopping information. Spreen further discloses product detail
page that may be provided to a user in response to a search for
local retailers carrying a desired product, and may further
provide some product and promotional information.
(Id. at 95 (citations omitted).)
However, Spreen lacks any disclosure that teaches or
suggests a method for registering and providing technical
support of products - let alone "determining a second resource
location storing a user manual of the first product;" and
"including in the personalized page a second link corresponding
to the second resource location, wherein the second link, when
activated from the personalized page displayed by the mobile
application, is to access the user manual of the first product from
the second resource location," as set forth in claim 6.
(Id. (emphasis omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 6 are distinguishable over Spreen, Appellants merely
summarize Spreen with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach
the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not
43
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 6. See
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 6. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which
claims 6 and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas,
Spreen, and Jones
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 7 separately (App. Br. 96-98), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Jones discloses a system and method of electronic
advertisement and commerce. Jones further discloses a live chat-
room sponsored by and/or maintained by a business entity, where
the business entity may assist the customer, or the customer may
discuss advertisements with other customers.
(Br. 97 (citations omitted.)
However, Jones lacks any disclosure that teaches or
suggests a method for registering and providing technical
support of products - let alone "determining a third resource
location associated with a social community having a discussion
forum for the first product;" and "including in the personalized
page a third link corresponding to the second resource location,
wherein the second link, when activated from the personalized
page displayed by the mobile application, is to access the user
manual of the first product from the second resource location,"
as set forth in claim 7.
(Id. (emphasis omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 7 are distinguishable over Jones, Appellants merely
44
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
summarize Jones with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach the
features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 7. See
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 7. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which
claims 7 and 15 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas,
Spreen, Jones, and Hayward
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 8 separately (Br. 98-100), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Hayward discloses a context sensitive web-based user
support. Hayward further discloses an installation software that
may include and execute a module to perform online registration,
where the online registration provides blank fields to be filed out
by the user, where the online registration senses a peripheral
indicia at a computer, where the indicia includes any of a model
or part number, a date of manufacturer, a serial number an even
configuration information for peripherals that may have diverse
reconfigurable parts; and then the process of registering the
peripheral launches a communications browser to connect the
registration server, where the user fills out the blank fields and
the exact peripheral indicia are sent to the registration server.
(Br. 99 (citations omitted.))
However, Hayward lacks any disclosure that teaches or
suggests a method for registering and providing technical
support of products - let alone "wherein the personalized page
further includes the serial number of the first product, a
registration date of the first product, a purchase date of the first
45
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
product, and warranty information of the first product," as set
forth in claim 8.
(Id. (emphasis omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 8 are distinguishable over Hayward, Appellants
merely summarize Hayward with a conclusory statement that Hayward does
not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 8.
See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 8. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which
claims 8 and 16 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula,
Benoy, and MacLean
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 24 separately (Br. 100-104), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Benoy further discloses a gaming machine used to provide a
method of registering a player to a loyalty program such as a
player tracking program at the gaming machine. Benoy also
discloses that in a gaming machine, a player tracking program is
implemented using a player tracking unit installed in the gaming
machine, where these player tracking/accounting systems are
used in most casinos. Benoy further discloses that a cell phone
may be used as a loyalty program instrument, where a player may
enter loyalty program registration information for a "point of
play" registration using the player's cell phone, and the cell
phone may be used to communicate directly with the player
46
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
tracking unit, directly with gaming machine, or with a loyalty
program server via a local network or combinations thereof.
(Br. 101-102 (citations omitted).)
However, Benoy lacks any disclosure that specifically
teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing
technical support of products, in particular Benoy fails to teach
or suggest "receiving a sixth request from the mobile application
of the mobile device for registering a loyalty program subscribed
by the user, the sixth request including a second machine-
readable code uniquely representing the subscribed loyalty
program, wherein the second machine-readable code was
obtained by scanning a barcode of a loyalty card using a scanner
or camera of the mobile device;" and "in response to the sixth
request, accessing via a third API a third backend system of the
retailer to obtain detailed loyalty information based on the
second machine-readable code;" and then "storing the detailed
loyalty information in the user asset store of the user, wherein the
detailed loyalty information includes a program name and a
loyalty number of the loyalty program," as set forth in claim 24.
(Id. at 102 (emphasis omitted).)
Similarly, Appellants argue the following:
MacLean further discloses allowing two users to exchange
reward currency, such as points, between two different loyalty
programs at an exchange rate that is set by and agreed upon by
the users themselves, particular loyalty programs may offer
credits for upgrades, coupons, or other perks to its members
rather than or in addition to points or miles, and a loyalty
program has a database in which the account balances of the
members of the loyalty program are stored.
(Id. at 102-103 (citations omitted.))
However, MacLean lacks any disclosure that specifically
teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing
technical support of products, in particular MacLean fails to
teach or suggest "receiving a sixth request from the mobile
application of the mobile device for registering a loyalty program
subscribed by the user, the sixth request including a second
47
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
machine-readable code uniquely representing the subscribed
loyalty program, wherein the second machine-readable code was
obtained by scanning a barcode of a loyalty card using a scanner
or camera of the mobile device;" and "in response to the sixth
request, accessing via a third API a third backend system of the
retailer to obtain detailed loyalty information based on the
second machine-readable code;" and then "storing the detailed
loyalty information in the user asset store of the user, wherein the
detailed loyalty information includes a program name and a
loyalty number of the loyalty program," as set forth in claim 24.
(Id. at 103 (emphases omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 24 are distinguishable over Benoy and MacLean,
Appellants merely summarize the references with a conclusory statement
that Benoy and MacLean individually do not teach the features of this
dependent claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 24 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection---Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula,
Benoy, MacLean, and Marriott
Claim 25
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 25 separately (Br. 104--106), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim is
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
Marriott discloses a method of registering online to join Marriott
rewards program. Marriott further discloses an online page
where a user can locate a Marriott hotel by providing defined
location information, and the online page provides various sign-
up options, such as a "Use Points" option, an "Earn Points or
48
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
Miles" option, a "DreamRewards Tracker" option, and "News"
options.
(Id. at 105 (citations omitted.)
However, Marriott clearly lacks any disclosure that
teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing
technical support of products, in particular Marriot [sic] fails to
disclose "transmitting a loyalty page summarizing the subscribed
loyalty program to the mobile application to be displayed in the
mobile device, wherein the loyalty page includes a first link to
access one or more offers offered by the loyalty program, a
second link to find a nearby retail location of the first product, a
third link to access an online community of the loyalty program,
and a fourth link to access a Web site associated with the loyalty
program," as set forth in claim 25.
(Id. (emphasis omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 25 are distinguishable over Marriott, Appellants
merely summarize Marriott with a conclusory statement that Marriott does
not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have
not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 25.
See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 25 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Claim 26
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 26 separately (Br. 107-108), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim is
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following:
49
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
At best, Marriott discloses a method of registering online
to join Marriott rewards program. Marriott further discloses an
online page where a user can locate a Marriott hotel by providing
defined location information, and the online page provides
various sign-up options, such as a "Use Points" option, an "Earn
Points or Miles" option, a "DreamRewards Tracker" option, and
"News" options.
(Id. at 107 (citations omitted.)
However, Marriott clearly lacks any disclosure that
teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing
technical support of products, in particular Marriot [sic] fails to
disclose "wherein the loyalty page further includes a second live
support button to allow the user to initiate a live support session
with a support agent concerning the loyalty program from the
loyalty page," as set forth in claim 26.
(Id. (emphasis omitted).)
Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how
the limitations of claim 26 are distinguishable over Marriott, Appellants
merely summarize Marriott with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not
teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 26.
See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 26 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 24--26 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).
50
Appeal2016-008230
Application 13/085,397
AFFIRMED
51