Appeal Number: 2006-3073
Application Number: 10/033,151
from the SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card in the phone. Given that Filler
requires user identification and cell phones provide this user identification, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to rely upon the
information already available to supply Filler’s information requirement.
We note that Filler on p. 10 does indeed describe identifying a user of a
terminal in a communication network from subscriber identity information of the
user in the communication network. The difference between this and what the
appellants argue is that, in the appellants’ claim, the communications network is a
cellular communication network. However, Yu provides motivation for using a
cellular phone in implementing such a terminal because, “[t]o provide mobility and
portability of the internet, interactive two-way communication mobile devices are
introduced.” (col. 1 lines 34-36). Therefore, the combination of Filler and Yu
suggests identifying a user of a cellular mobile phone in a communication network
from subscriber identity information of the user in a cellular mobile
communication network.
The appellants further argue that
there is no associating a digital collectible trading card with a user
based on the subscriber identity of the user in the cellular mobile
communication network received from the cellular mobile phone. As
mentioned above, Yu may include the words "subscriber ID," but the
subscriber ID of Yu is created and administered by a carrier
administering link server 300 as part of an account activation
procedure. The advantageous way of utilizing the subscriber identity
of the user in the cellular mobile communication network for
associating the card is not disclosed or suggested.
(Br. 8).
The examiner responds that Filler describes using the subscriber identity of the
user to associate the user with a trading card, citing p. 2, lines 17-20 and p. 15,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013