Ex Parte Erola et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 201612447035 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/447,035 04/27/2010 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 03/17/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR EsaErola 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. P5974USOO 1897 EXAMINER TRUONG, DENNIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ESA EROLA and VILLE WARSTA Appeal2013-007830 Application 12/447,035 1 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-15, 22-24, 34, and 35. App. Br. 5-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation, Finland, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2013-007830 Application 12/447,035 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to methods for creating service provider accounts for devices such as mobile phones. Spec. 1:1-14. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method comprising: causing, at least in part, transmission of one or more parameters associated with a device; receiving a list of one or more service providers at the device, the list being derived, using one or more of the parameters, from a set of service providers; facilitating user-selection via the device of at least one of the service providers in the list; and facilitating communication between the device and the selected service provider to enable the user to create a service account with the selected service provider from the device. App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of co- pending Application No. 11/585,780. Final Act. 4--6. Claims 1-15, 22-24, and 34--35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kruis (US 2005/0015505 Al, published Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 6-19. ANALYSIS DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION Appellants do not contest the provisional obviousness-type double patenting 2 Appeal2013-007830 Application 12/447,035 rejection of claim 1. We note that arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we proforma sustain the Examiner's provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 1. REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 5-10. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue Kruis fails to disclose "receiving a list of one or more service providers at a device, the list being derived, using one or more parameters, from a set of service providers," as recited in claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 15 and 34. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend Kruis' teaching that the user has the ability to transmit e-mails through any of multiple email services is not an explicit or inherent teaching of the disputed limitation. Id. This argument is not persuasive as it fails to address the full scope of the Examiner's findings. See e.g., Final Act. 2-19. The Examiner also finds Kruis discloses receiving a list of one or more service providers at a device. Final Act. 7, citing Kruis i-f 105 ("device 102 displays a list of all of the primary and additional services that have been integrated with the associated service"). The Examiner further finds the list was derived using one or more parameters associated with the device from a set of service providers. Final Act. 7, citing Kruis i-fi-147, 96, 98, 110 (discussing, inter alia, records for each device containing information relating to the device's capabilities and services provisioned by multiple service providers). 3 Appeal2013-007830 Application 12/447,035 The Examiner's findings and analysis are reasonable and support the finding of anticipation. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Kruis discloses "an apparatus that is caused to perform 'receive one or more first parameters associated with a device' and 'derive ... a list of one or more service providers from a set of service providers using one or more of the first parameters,' as recited in independent claim 34 and similarly in independent claims 1 and 15" (App. Br. 8) as well as "receiving a contact record including at least a user- service identifier identifying a user of the device for the created service account, and storing the received contact record in a contacts database" as required by dependent claim 11 (App. Br. 10). However, Appellants do not provide any substantive arguments to support their position or to rebut the Examiner's findings that Kruis discloses these limitations. See e.g., Final Act. 2-3, 6-8, 13, and 15-19. Nor do Appellants provide any analysis of the cited specific textual portions of the cited references upon which the Examiner relies in the rejections. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating "the 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"). In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, and 34. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-10, 12-15, 22-24, and 35, which were not argued separately. 4 Appeal2013-007830 Application 12/447,035 DECISION The Examiner's provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15, 22-24, and 34--35 as anticipated is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation