Ex Parte I

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11331946 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte COLIN I’ANSON
____________

Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EVANS, and PETER P. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-202 as obvious and as unpatentable
under the judicial doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 The Real Party in Interest is the Hewlett-Packard Development Company,
LP.
2 App. Br. 10.
3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed November 15, 2010
Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to relate to the provision and use of multiple
electronic services over a common delivery platform that is connected to a
telecommunications network, such as a mobile telephone network or a
broadband network. Spec. ¶ 0002.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately with sufficient specificity (see App. Br. 17-21); therefore,
they stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A system for providing services to subscribers of a
network, wherein the system supports the provision of a
plurality of different services to multiple subscribers, and
comprises:
a first processing unit which provides a first execution
environment for a first set of software applications;
a second processing unit which provides a second
execution environment for a second set of software
applications; and
a data structure for storing data associated with
subscribers of the system, the data structure providing a
common identity for association with a subscriber which is
recognized by the first and second processing units of the
system.

(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 9, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 2, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
September 2, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed
January 13, 2006 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946

3
References
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Jungck et al.
Teijido et al.
US 2002/0009079 A1
US 2002/0053020 A1
Jan. 24, 2002
May 2, 2002
Park US 2004/0152451 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
Philips et al. US 2004/0199794 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Wu US 2005/0240917 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Ravindranath et al. US 7,062,565 B1 June 13, 2006
The claims stand rejected as follows:4
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-16, and 20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-15, and 20 of co-pending
Application No. 11/332,060 (’060 application). Ans. 5.
2. Claims 1-7, 11, 16, 17, and 20 stand provisionally rejected on the
ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 4-9, 15, 16, and 20 of co-pending
Application No. 11/331,858 (’858 application). Ans. 11.
3. Claims 1, 2, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ravindranath and Philips. Ans. 16.
4. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Ravindranath, Philips, and Jungck. Ans. 22.
5. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ravindranath, Philips, and Teijido. Ans. 24.
6. Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Ravindranath, Philips, and Park. Ans. 25.

4 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946

4
7. Claims 7-11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Ravindranath, Philips, and Wu. Ans. 27.
8. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Ravindranath, Philips, Wu, and Park. Ans. 33.
9. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Park, Philips,
and Ravindranath. Ans. 34.

PROVISIONAL DOUBLE PATENTING
CLAIMS 1-17 AND 20
Appellant requests these rejections be held in abeyance until
allowable subject matter has been indicated. App. Br. 11. However, the
’858 application issued as Patent No. 8,291,077 B2 (’077 patent) on Oct. 16,
2012. Therefore, the Examiner’s non-statutory obviousness-type double-
patenting rejection, based on the ’858 application, is no longer provisional.
Appellant fails to address either the Examiner’s non-provisional (as a
consequence of the ’077 patent issuance) non-statutory obviousness-type
double-patenting rejection or the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory
obviousness-type double-patenting rejection based on the ’060 application.
Thus, Appellants waive any arguments with respect to these rejections. The
claims of the ’858 application have not since be amended to the extent that
the Examiner’s findings are no longer applicable. See Amend. 2-7 (’858
application, Oct. 24, 2011). The claims of the ’060 application also have not
since be amended to the extent that the Examiner’s findings are no longer
applicable. See Amend. 2-7 (’060 application, Oct. 21 2011). Accordingly,
we pro forma affirm both of the Examiner’s non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting rejection.
Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946

5

OBVIOUSNESS
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The Ravindranath and Philips references, alone or in combination, do
not teach the data structure providing a common identity for association with
a subscriber, which is recognized by the first and second processing units of
the system, as recited in independent Claims 1, 17 and 20. App. Br. 11-17;
Reply Br. 5-9.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-21)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5-13), the issue presented on appeal is:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the asserted combination of
Ravindranath in view of Philips teaches the disputed claim limitation of the
data structure providing a common identity for association with a subscriber.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 17, AND 20
Appellant presents essentially identical arguments with respect to
Claims 1, 17, and 20. App. Br. 11-17; Reply Br. 5-9. Appellant contends
the “unique authentication credential” associated with Philips’s application
clusters is not a “common identity for association with a subscriber.” App.
Br. 12 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946

6
The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Ravindranath teaches a first
processing unit 170, second processing unit 180, and data structure SSG
(service selection gateway). Final Rej. 15-16. The Examiner relies upon the
combination with Philips to teach the data structure providing a “common
identity for association with a subscriber.” Final Rej. 16; Ans. 36. The
Examiner points to databases 110 and 112 in Figure 2 of Philips as the first
and second processing unit, respectively, and notes that a common identity
222 and 224 is utilized by the application cluster to provide subscriber 118
with access to databases 110 and 112.5 Final Rej. 35; Ans. 37. Philips
describes the common identity as a Kerberos ticket, which the Examiner
contends is a well-known technique utilized for a single sign-on
configuration. Ans. 37.
We agree with Appellant’s contention that Philips does not teach “a
common identity for association with a subscriber.” It is the application
cluster 102 of Philips that has a common identity 222 and 224 to access the
database 110 (first unit) and database 112 (second unit), not the user (or
subscriber) 118. Philips is silent regarding the credentials needed by user
118 to access the application cluster 102 on line 130. Because it is the
application cluster that has a “common identity” and not the subscriber, we
do not find that Philips teaches the limitation “the data structure providing a
common identity for association with a subscriber,” as required by
independent Claims 1, 17 and 20 (emphasis added).

5 Appellant contends that this mapping of elements and discussion of
common identity was not expressly discussed in the Final Rejection mailed
September 2, 2010. Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner presented these
elements in more detail in the Response to Arguments section. Final Rej.
35.
Appeal 2011-006766
Application 11/331,946

7
For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejections
of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ORDER
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
The rejections of Claims 1-17 and 20 under the judicial doctrine of
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED

bab