Appeal Number: 2006-3073
Application Number: 10/033,151
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 21, 23, 25 and 26
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler and Yu.
The examiner has applied Filler to the concept of a digital trading card that is
associated with user identification in the claimed subject matter, and relied on Yu
to apply Filler’s trading card within the context of a cellular phone. (Answer 3-4).
We note that although the appellants have written arguments for independent
claims 1 and 21 separately, the arguments set forth under each of these claims are
substantially the same and we address them together.
The appellants argue that
because neither reference discloses or suggests identifying a user of a
cellular mobile phone in the communication network from subscriber
identity information of the user in the cellular mobile communication
network, the combination of Filler and Yu fails to render this feature
obvious, and the requirements of an obviousness rejection have not
been met.
(Br. 6-7).
The examiner responds that Filler identifies a user from subscriber identity
information, pointing to p. 10, lines 8-9, and that Yu teaches obtaining images such
as Filler’s on a cellular phone. (Answer 11-12). The appellants further argue that
Filler’s user ID is not subscriber identity information as known in the art. (Reply
Br. 2). The appellants provide no evidence for this assertion, nor is there any
lexicographic definition in the disclosure. We note that the ordinary meaning of
“subscriber identity information” is thus information regarding the identity of a
subscriber, which is clearly met by Filler’s user ID. Further, the appellants admit
that cellular phones provide such unambiguous user identification information
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013