Ex Parte Heydari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

13659906 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/659,906 10/24/2012
84649 7590 10/01/2018
Symbus Law Group, LLC
Cliff Hyra
11710 Plaza America Drive
Suite 2000
Reston, VA 20190
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ramin Heydari
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.
7083-107 1059
EXAMINER
GAO,JING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
docketing@symbus.com
chyra@symbus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMIN HEYDARI and GREGORY TAYLOR
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 7-13 and 19-41. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 7-11, 13, 33-35, and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Myers (US 2009/0061818 Al; Mar. 5, 2009),
Moon (US 2003/0174822 Al; Sep. 18, 2003), and New (US 2006/0043171
Al; Mar. 2, 2006). Final Act. 3-10.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
over Myers, New, and Maraz (US 2011/0066514 Al; Mar. 17, 2011). Final
Act. 10-12.
Claims 19, 20, 38, and 39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Myers, Moon, New, and Maraz. Final Act. 13-14. 1
Claims 21-32, 36, 40, and 41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Myers, Moon, New, and Walmart (Walmart To
Launch Straight Talk Exclusively, Nationwide, Walmart, Oct. 14, 2009).
Final Act. 14--21.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "refilling minutes for prepaid wireless
phones." Spec. 2: 10. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A system, comprising:
a processor;
a database configured to store and receive customer information and
customer specific rules; and
a memory containing a program, which, when executed by the
processor, is configured to perform an operation, the operation comprising:
displaying a list of available prepaid services from multiple
earners;
receiving a prepaid service selection from the list of available
prepaid services from multiple carriers;
receiving one or more selected customer specific rules; and
1 The formal statement of rejection omits New from the references. We treat
these claims as rejected as obvious over Myers, Moon, New, and Maraz.
2
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
capturing and storing the selected prepaid service, the customer
information, and the customer specific rules in the database;
automatically executing recurring payments from a customer's
financial account to an account of a first entity, according to the customer's
specific rules governing the recurring payments; and
crediting a customer's calling device serviced by a second
entity and associated with the customer's account, with prepaid service in
response to executing the recurring payments, wherein the second entity is a
carrier of the calling device.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7-11, 13, 33-35, AND 37 OVER
MYERS, MOON, AND NEW
Claims 7, 13, and 37
The Examiner finds Myers, Moon, and New teach all limitations of
independent claim 7. Final Act. 3---6; see also Ans. 3-5. In particular, the
Examiner finds Myers's platform for refreshing a prepaid account and
Moon's automatic replenishment via credit card charges for a prepaid
telephone calling card, collectively, teach all limitations of claim 7, except
for "displaying a list of available prepaid services from multiple carriers;
receiving a prepaid service selection from the list of available prepaid
services from multiple carriers; [] capturing and storing the selected prepaid
service[] in the database," which the Examiner finds is taught by New.
Final Act. 3-6. In particular, the Examiner finds New's client terminal
displaying a list of prepaid services from multiple carriers teaches the
limitations absent from Myers and Moon. Final Act. 6 (citing New Figs. 5,
3
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
25; ,r,r 94--99, 142). The Examiner reasons "it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time [the] invention was made to
combine the teachings of Myers, Moon and New because it would [have]
allow[ed the] user to choose and pay for desired service." Final Act. 6.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1.
Myers[] teaches away from using a program to select a prepaid
service plan from multiple carriers since Myers[] only discloses
the existence of a "first communication service" associated with
a prepaid account. The program interface disclosed by Myers
allows for the selection of refresh rules and other services
associated with the user's existing prepaid service, such as text
messages and voicemail. However, a review of Myer[ s] fails to
disclose the use of a "program configured to receive a selected
prepaid service from a list of available prepaid services from
multiple carriers," as claimed in amended Claim 1.
Br. 7.
11.
New discloses a retail terminal that allows a customer to select
a desired virtual long-distance calling card product from a touch
screen, pay for the product and then receive the product on-
screen and/or on a printed receipt, in the form of a PIN that can
be used in conjunction with a carrier-specific access phone
number to utilize the pre-paid long-distance service. It does not
disclose capturing and storing the selected prepaid service
( from a list of available prepaid services from multiple carriers)
in the database as the Examiner claims. The Examiner cites to
retrieving requested PIN s from a PIN database, but this is not
equivalent to capturing and storing selected prepaid services.
Furthermore, New does not disclose crediting a calling device
serviced by a second entity, as claimed by the Examiner. New
discloses printing a receipt with a PIN on it that can be used to
make pre-paid long distance phone calls. It does not disclose
crediting a calling device.
4
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
Br. 8.
111. There is no reason to combine New with Meyers and Moon.
See Br. 9--10 ("There is no relationship between the account refresh system
of Myers and the pre-paid long-distance phone card retail terminal of New
and no one of skill in the art would have thought to combine them, or have
had any idea how to do so even if they wanted to.").
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
We do not see any error in the Examiner's contested findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i), while an alternative may be
inferior to or less desirable than another, that alone is insufficient to teach
away from the inferior alternative unless the disclosure criticizes, discredits,
or otherwise discourages that alternative. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1200--01 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, to the extent Myers discloses a platform for
use with a single carrier, a lack of discussion of multiple carriers does not
teach away from multiple carriers because Myers does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of multiple carriers. See Myers
Abstract.
Regarding Appellants' arguments (ii) and (iii),
[ t ]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
5
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
New discloses a flowchart illustrating operation of a client terminal,
and the various steps involved in purchasing prepaid services. New Fig. 5;
see New Figs. 6-10 (depicting various display screens during purchasing of
prepaid services). Thus, New discloses "displaying a list of available
prepaid services from multiple carriers." See New Figs. 6-8. New further
discloses "receiving a prepaid service selection from the list of available
prepaid services from multiple carriers." See New Figs. 9--10.
Regarding "capturing and storing the selected prepaid service [] in the
database," when New's system receives the customer selections and
provides further information, New's system stores the customer selections.
See New Figs. 6-10; see also Ans. 4.
Regarding crediting a calling service, the Examiner finds Myers
teaches crediting a customer's calling device, while Moon teaches crediting
a calling device serviced by a second entity. Final Act. 4--5. When the
teachings of New (selecting prepaid service where a PIN is issued to access
the service) are combined with the teachings of Myers and Moon, the calling
device is credited with the prepaid service instead of issuing the PIN. The
Examiner articulated a reason for combining New with Myers and Moon
that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record.
See Final Act. 6 ("it would [have] allow[ ed the] user to choose and pay for
desired service"); see also New Abstract ("receiving, at the client terminal, a
first request for a PIN associated with a first of plural prepaid services."). In
addition,
6
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
[ w ]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative-a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
Myers teaches a platform for refreshing (purchasing) a prepaid
account from one carrier, while New teaches purchasing a prepaid account
from one of multiple carriers. Both references pertain to prepaid phone
services. In short, applying New's teaching of multiple carriers to Myers's
platform to modify Myers's platform to accommodate multiple carriers
would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 37, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
Claim 8-11 and 33-35
The Examiner finds Myers, Moon, and New teach all limitations of
claims 8-11 and 33-35. Final Act. 6-10; see also Ans. 5-9.
For each of claims 8-11 and 33-35, Appellants argue that the cited
paragraphs are not relevant but make no attempt to characterize the prior art.
7
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
See Br. 11-13. Accordingly, Appellants do not argue these claims with
particularity. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold
that 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 addition, we note that the Examiner has provided a response to
Appellants' arguments, supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Ans. 5-9. Weighing the Examiner's findings and reasons in the Final
Action and the Answer against Appellants' naked assertions, we are not
persuaded of any error in the Examiner's findings.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-11 and
33-35.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 12 OVER MYERS, NEW, AND MARAZ
The Examiner finds Myers, New, and Maraz teach all limitations of
claim 12. Final Act. 10-12; see also Ans. 10-12.
Claim 12 recites the following key disputed limitations:
receiving a payment from a customer's financial account
for a refill of the prepaid service selection for a customer's
calling device serviced by a second entity, wherein the second
entity is a carrier of the calling device;
generating an electronic personal identification number
for a customer account stored in a database in response to
receiving the payment, wherein the calling device is associated
with the customer account[.]
With respect to the key disputed limitations, Appellants argue
New does not disclose refill of a prepaid service, rather it
discloses the retail sale of pre-paid long-distance phone cards.
8
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
In no way are they "refilling" anything. New does not
disclose[] refill of prepaid service for a calling device[] serviced
by a second entity, rather New discloses the sale of phone
cards, which are unrelated to any calling device or any
servicing entity. New does not disclose a PIN for a customer
account stored in a database, rather it teaches a PIN that is
unrelated to any customer account- any person knowing the
PIN can use it to place calls from any device. New does not
disclose a calling device associated with a customer account for
which the PIN is generated-there is no calling device associated
with its PIN s.
Br. 14.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's contested findings. Nor do
we see any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner does not find New, alone, teaches the key disputed
limitations. Rather, the Examiner finds the key disputed limitations are
taught by Myers and New. Final Act. 10-12. In particular, the Examiner
finds Myers teaches
receiving a payment from a customer's financial account for a
refill of the prepaid service selection for a customer's calling
device []; generating an electronic personal identification
number for a customer account stored in a database in response
to receiving the payment, wherein the calling device is
associated with the customer account[.]
Final Act. 10-11.
In particular, the Examiner finds New teaches "serviced by a second
entity, wherein the second entity is a carrier of the calling device." Final
Act. 11-12. The Examiner articulates a reason for combining the teachings
of Myers and New that is rational on its face and supported by evidence
drawn from the record. See Final Act. 12 ("[ the combination] would [have]
allow[ ed the] user to choose and pay for desired service"); see also New
9
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
Abstract ("receiving, at the client terminal, a first request for a PIN
associated with a first of plural prepaid services."). Appellants do not
present any particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is insufficient.
Accordingly, on this record, we find the combined teachings of Myers and
New teach the argued limitations. Again, applying New's teaching of
multiple carriers to Myers's platform to modify Myers's platform to
accommodate multiple carriers would have been a predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Finally, regarding combining the teachings of Maraz with Myers and
New, the Examiner finds Maraz teaches "receiving an activation indication
to assign the [prepaid] service to the [ calling device], the activation
indication comprising the electronic personal identification number" as
recited in claim 12. Final Act. 12 (citing Maraz ,r 39). The Examiner
reasons "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time [the] invention was made to combine the teachings ofMyer[s], New
and Maraz because it would help the retailer tracking the service and product
to prevent the retailer losing commission and/or device." Final Act. 12.
Contrary to Appellants' argument that there is no basis for the Examiner's
reasoning (see Br. 14--15), we find the Examiner's reasoning is rational and
supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Maraz ,r 39 ("Once the
sale is complete, the product may be activated, e.g., by communicating the
UPC, IMEI [International Mobile Equipment Identity], serial number, and/or
other identifier(s) to the service provider from either or both of the POS
[point-of-sale] location and the ER [ electronic registration] system.").
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
10
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 19, 20, 38, AND 39 OVER MYERS,
MOON, NEW, AND MARAZ
The Examiner finds Myers, Moon, New, and Maraz teach all
limitations of claims 19, 20, 38, and 39. Final Act. 13-14; see also Ans. 13.
First, Appellants argue Maraz does not cure alleged deficiencies of
Myers, Moon, and New. See Br. 15. For reasons discussed above when
addressing claim 7, this argument does not persuade us of any error in the
Examiner's findings.
Second, Appellants argue "claims 19, 3 8 and 3 9 recite crediting a
retailer or other party with a portion of a recurring charge. The Examiner
argues that Maraz discloses this limitation, however Maraz recites a
commission based on a new service agreement, not based on a portion of a
recurring charge." Br. 15.
This argument also does not persuade us of any error with the
Examiner's findings.
Maraz discloses "Wireless service providers then pay commissions to
retailers, after a predetermined period of time with the service, for each new
customer acquired." Maraz ,r 4. We recognize that this disclosure in Maraz
refers to a commission based on a new service agreement. However, as
discussed above when addressing claim 7, automatically executing recurring
payments is taught by Myers and Moon. The reliance on Maraz is for
crediting the retailer with a portion of a charge. Thus, the argued limitation
is suggested by the combined teachings of the references.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 19,
20, 38, and 39.
11
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 21-32, 36, 40, AND 41 OVER
MYERS, MOON, NEW, AND W ALMART
The Examiner finds Myers, Moon, New, and Walmart teach all
limitations of claims 21-32, 36, 40, and 41. Final Act. 14--21; see also Ans.
13-21.
Regarding claims 21-32, 36, 40, and 41, Appellants make various
arguments (see Br. 16-20) contending the Examiner erred. We have fully
considered Appellants' arguments, and we do not see any errors in the
Examiner's findings for the following reasons.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Appellants argue the prior does not
disclose the claimed subject matter, but make no attempt to characterize the
prior art. See Br. 16-17 ("The Examiner argues that [the limitation recited
in claim 23] is taught by [Walmart], however [Walmart] does not disclose
that the block is selected based on preset parameters .... The Examiner
argues that [the limitation recited in claim 24] is taught by [Walmart] (and
possibly also by New), however neither reference says anything relevant to
this limitation at all. Neither suggests present parameters that dictate lowest-
cost block selection."). Accordingly, Appellants do not argue claims 23 and
24 with particularity. Even so, the Examiner has provided a response to
Appellants' arguments, supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Ans. 14--15. The Examiner explains how the combination ofNew's prepaid
service and Walmart's unlimited service days teaches the limitation recited
in claim 23. See Ans. 14. In addition, the Examiner explains how the
combination of New and Walmart also teach the limitation recited in
12
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
claim 24. See Ans. 14--15. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 23 and 24.
Regarding claim 25, Appellants argue the prior does not disclose the
claimed subject matter, but make no attempt to characterize the prior art
other than arguing New "teaches prepaid phone cards that are not associated
with any calling device." Br. 17. This argument is not persuasive for
reasons discussed above when addressing claim 7. In addition, the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments is supported by evidence
drawn from the record. See Ans. 15. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 25.
Claim 26 recites "the operation further comprises selecting between
prepaid minutes and unlimited service days for the prepaid service."
Appellants argue "The 'All you need' plan of [Walmart] is also not a block
of prepaid minutes but a plan which happens to include a certain number of
free minutes within a given time period." Br. 1 7. Contrary to Appellants'
argument, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's Response in
the Examiner's Answer: "[Walmart] teaches the user may select between the
'all you need' 30-day plan in which 1000 minutes are included in the plan
and 'unlimited 30-day plan' (page 1). Therefore, [Walmart] teaches selecting
between prepaid minutes and unlimited service days for the prepaid service,
as disclosed in claim 26." Ans. 15. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 26.
Claim 2 7 recites "the selection between prepaid minutes and
unlimited service days for the prepaid service is based at least in part [on]
predicted usage during an upcoming period of time." Appellants argue "the
claim relates to a program executed by a processor that predicts usage,
13
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
which is not taught or suggested by [Wahnart]." Br. 17. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that W almart teaches the
argued limitation. See Ans. 15-16. Put another way, the user makes the
selection as recited and the selection is realized by the processor, which
reasonably describes what is claimed. Further, having the processor perform
an operation instead of performing it manually does not patentably
distinguish over the prior art in this case. See In re Venner, 262 F .2d at 95
("[I]t is well settled that it is not 'invention' to broadly provide a mechanical
or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the
same result.") We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27.
Claim 2 8 recites "the selection between prepaid minutes and
unlimited service days for the prepaid service is based at least in part on the
use [ r ]' s preset parameters, which include a maximum cost for service over a
given period of time." Appellants argue "the claim relates to a program
executed by a processor that predicts usage, which is not taught or suggested
by [Walmart]." Br. 1 7. Contrary to Appellants' argument, we agree with
the Examiner that Myers and Walmart teach the argued limitation. See Ans.
16. Put another way, "the user may choose [the] plan base[d] on price and
choose between a limited minute plan and an unlimited plan." Ans. 16. The
user's selections are realized by the processor, which reasonably describes
what is claimed. Further, having the processor perform an operation instead
of performing it manually does not patentably distinguish over the prior art
in this case. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d at 95. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 28.
Claim 29 recites "the user's preset parameters comprise a user-
selected recharge date, wherein the user-selected recharge date is after the
14
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
expiration of prepaid service currently credited to the calling device,
resulting in a temporary loss of service for the calling device." Appellants
argue Myers does not teach the subject matter of claim 29. Br. 29. Contrary
to Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that Myers teaches
refreshing on a recurring date, the provider providing service only when
payment is made. See Ans. 17; see also Myers Fig. 4 (illustrating various
techniques for refresh). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 29.
Claim 30 recites "selecting blocks of unlimited service from at least
two service providers, based on the preset parameters, that together provide
unlimited service for a user-set period of time." Appellants argue that the
prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter of claim 30. Br. 19.
Contrary to Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that
New teaches the customer can choose one of these goods or
services to purchase, such as prepaid cellular telephone service.
The customer is then provided with a list of providers for the
chosen good or service and asked to choose a provider, such as
Sprint or AT&T, and the customer choose the provider he/she
desired (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0094 ). Further, [Walmart]
teaches user may select different calling plans (Page 1 ).
Therefore, the combination of New and [Walmart] teaches
selecting blocks of unlimited service from at least two service
providers, based on the preset parameters that together provide
unlimited service for a user-set period of time, as disclosed in
claim 30.
Ans. 17. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 30.
Claim 31 recites "the preset parameters comprise at least one of a set
of service providers from which the blocks are permitted to be selected, a
requirement that the blocks resulting in the lowest overall cost be selected,
and a total duration of service to be provided by selected blocks of unlimited
15
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
service." Appellants argue "Myers does not teach selection of blocks from
multiple service providers, nor does [Walmart]." Br. 19. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that New and Walmart
teach the argued limitations. See Ans. 18. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 31.
Claim 3 2 recites "the operation further comprises selecting one or
more blocks of unlimited service and one or more blocks of prepaid minutes
that together provide service for a user-set period of time at the lowest
possible cost, based on predicted usage." Appellants argue Walmart "does
not teach a program executed by a processor that carries out a selection of
service at all, let alone predicting usage and selecting both a block of
unlimited service and a block of prepaid minutes. The [Walmart] plans are
also each time-period-based plans." Br. 19. Contrary to Appellants
argument, we agree with the Examiner that
New teaches the customer can choose one of these goods or
services to purchase, such as prepaid cellular telephone service.
The customer is then provided with a list of providers for the
chosen good or service and asked to choose a provider, such as
Sprint or AT&T, and the customer choose the provider he/she
desired (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0094). Further, [Walmart]
teaches user may select different calling plans, one is cheaper
with limited minutes, the other one is more expensive but with
unlimited plan (Page 1 ), thus the user may select the plan base[ d]
on predicted usage and price. Therefore, the combination of New
and [Walmart] teaches selecting one or more blocks of unlimited
service and one or more blocks of prepaid minutes that together
provide service for a user-set period of time at the lowest
possible cost, based on predicted usage, as disclosed in claim 32.
Ans. 18-19.
In addition, the user's selections are realized by the processor, which
reasonably describes what is claimed. Further, having the processor perform
16
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
an operation instead of performing it manually does not patentably
distinguish over the prior art in this case. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 32.
Claim 3 6 recites "the operation further comprises selecting for the
credited prepaid service for each user account at least one of a block of
prepaid minutes and a block of unlimited service days from blocks of
prepaid service offered by a plurality of service providers, based at least in
part on predicted usage for each user account." Appellants argues Walmart
"says absolutely nothing about such a limitation." Br. 19. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, we agree with the Examiner that
New teaches the customer can choose one of these goods or
services to purchase, such as prepaid cellular telephone service.
The customer is then provided with a list of providers for the
chosen good or service and asked to choose a provider, such as
Sprint or AT&T, and the customer choose the provider he/she
desired (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0094). Further, [Walmart]
teaches user may select different calling plans, one is cheaper
with limited minutes, the other one is more expensive but with
unlimited plan (Page 1 ), thus the user may select the plan
base[ d] on predicted usage and price. Therefore, the
combination of New and [Walmart] teaches selecting for the
credited prepaid service for each user account at least one of a
block of prepaid minutes and a block of unlimited service days
from blocks of prepaid service offered by a plurality of service
providers, based at least in part on predicted usage for each user
account, as disclosed in claim 36.
Ans. 19. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 36.
Claim 40 recites
the prepaid service comprises a block of a given number of
unlimited service days, and wherein the one or more programs
further include instructions for: selecting the block of the given
number of unlimited service days from blocks of unlimited
17
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
service days offered by a range of service providers, based on
the customer specific rules.
Appellants argue Walmart "does not disclose that the block is selected based
on customer specific rules or from blocks offered by a range of service
providers." Br. 20. Contrary to Appellants argument and similar to the
discussion above, we agree with the Examiner that New and Walmart,
collectively, teach the argued limitation. See Ans. 19--20. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 40.
Claim 41 recites "the customer specific rules dictate that the block of
the given number of unlimited service days be selected from the range of
service providers on a lowest-cost basis."
Appellants argue that W almart and New do not "suggest[] preset parameters
that dictate lowest-cost block selection, let alone from a range of service
providers." Br. 20. Contrary to Appellants argument, we agree with the
Examiner that
New teaches prepaid service (Figure 5; list of prepaid services),
and user may select the prepaid service based on cost (Figure 5
and Paragraph 0079). Further, [Walmart] teaches Straight
Talk's Unlimited 30-day Plan that includes the following for
$45 a month (Page 1 middle of the page). And the prepaid
service as taught by New may[ ]be any days of the unlimited
service days as taught by [Walmart]. Therefore, the
combination of New and [Walmart] teaches the preset
parameters dictate that the block of the given number of
unlimited service days be selected on a lowest-cost basis.
Therefore, the combination of New and [W almart] teaches the
customer specific rules dictate that the block of the given
number of unlimited service days to be selected from the range
of service providers on a lowest-cost basis, as disclosed in
claim 41.
Ans. 20. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 41.
18
Appeal2017-010928
Application 13/659,906
Claims 21 and 22 are not separately argued with particularity. We,
therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 21 and 22.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-13 and 19--41 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
19