Ex Parte Tuchman et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 14, 201813085397 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/085,397 04/12/2011 8791 7590 05/16/2018 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenneth D. Tuchman 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. 9092P001 2061 EXAMINER FISHER, PAUL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2018 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): FIP _Group@bstz.com PTO.MAIL@BSTZPTO.COM PTO.MAIL@BSTZ.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNETH D. TUCHMAN, BRUCE A. SHARPE, HENRY D. TRUONG, and ALAN B. RAHN Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Technology Center 3600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20 and 24--26. Claims 21-23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to product registration, in which a user registers a product at a support center using a machine-readable code. The product information stored in a user asset store associated with the user and is utilized subsequently for supporting the identified product. (Spec. i-f 9.) Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A computer-implemented method for registering and providing technical support of products, the method comprising: receiving, at a server running on server hardware having a processor and memory, a first request from a user for registering a first product, the first request including a first machine-readable code that uniquely represents the first product, wherein the first machine- readable code is received from a mobile application running within a mobile device of the user and the first machine-readable code is obtained by scanning the first machine-readable code from the first product the user has acquired using a scanner or camera of the mobile device, wherein the first machine-readable code includes at least one of a quick-read (QR) code, a universal product code (UPC), and a barcode of the first product; identifying by a registration module executed by the processor of the server the first product and compiling product information based on the first machine-readable code without requiring the user to specifically provide the product information, including identifying a manufacturer of the first product based on the first machine-readable code, 2 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 transmitting via first application programming interface (API) a second request for product information to a first remote backend system associated with the identified manufacturer, receiving via the first API the product information from the first remote backend system in response to the second request, wherein the product information includes a serial number of the first product and a manufacturer identifier (ID) identifying the manufacturer of the first product, and storing in a product database at least a portion of the product information of the first product, the product database storing product information of a plurality of products provided by a plurality of product providers; identifying a retailer from which the first product was purchased based on the first machine-readable code; transmitting via a second AP I a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend system associated with the retailer; receiving via the second AP I purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend system, wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifYing a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction; storing in a client database at least a portion of the purchase information of the first product, the client database storing client information of the plurality of product providers; storing product registration information of the first product in a user asset store associated with the user, the product registration information including the product information and the purchase information of the product, wherein the user asset store is part of a user account associated with the user to store information of all products that have been registered with the server by the user; receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product; 3 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 storing the list of communications channels in a user profile of the user to be associated with the first product; in response to a fourth request for a live support received from the mobile application running within the mobile device of the user, identifying, by a support service module executed by the processor, the first product based on the fourth request; retrieving the product information and purchase information of the first product from the user asset store; generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a touch plan based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store; retrieving the list of one or more communication channels associated with the first product from the user profile of the user; transmitting the list of the communication channels to the mobile application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent; in response to a selection of one of the communication channels received from the mobile application of the mobile device, establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel; and routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with information of the user and relevant information of the first product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session. (Br. 110-112.) 4 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Examiner's Rejections & References (1) Claims 1-20 and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. (2) Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman et al. (US 2001/0053980 Al; Dec. 20, 2001), Attia et al. (US 2005/0011957 Al; Jan. 20, 2005), Rogers et al. (US 2004/0006514 Al; Jan. 8, 2004), Clayton (US 2005/0266825 Al; Dec. 1, 2005), Shafrir et al. (US 7,103,846 Bl; Sept. 5, 2006), and Gumbula (2008/0232575 Al; Sept. 25, 2008). (3) Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, and Paas et al. (US 2007/0271527 Al; Nov. 22, 2007). (4) Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas, and Spreen et al. (US 8,032,427 B 1; Oct. 4, 2011 ). (5) Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas, Spreen, and Jones (US 2006/0095320 Al; May 4, 2006). (6) Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas, Spreen, Jones, and Hayward et al. (US 2003/0023703 Al; Jan. 30, 2003). (7) Claim 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Benoy et al. (US 6,896,618 B2; May 24, 2005), and MacLean et al. (US 2011/0004558 Al; Jan. 6, 2011). 5 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 (8) Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Benoy, MacLean, and Marriott (Marriott International, Marriott Rewards Programs Information at Marriott.com (2006)). ANALYSIS § 1 OJ Rejection We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 24--41) that independent claims 1, 9, and 17 comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101 as statutory subject matter. The Examiner found that the claims are directed towards registering products and product support which is considered to be an abstract idea inasmuch as collect and storing product information and allowing the user to contact a service provider based on that stored information are activities that are considered both fundamental economic or business practices and "the claims currently collect, store, compare and transmit information." (Final Act. 3.) Moreover, the Examiner found that [t ]he elements in the instant claims (computer, server, mobile device, database, backend, medium, processor and memory), when taken in combination, together do not offer "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. (Id. at 3--4.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. A patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement 6 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this "provision contains an important implicit exception: [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) ("Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work."). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that "to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words 'apply it."' Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72 (internal citation omitted). In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to 7 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. at 2357 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea "cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity." Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that "' [ s ]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,' was not 'enough' [in Mayo] to supply an 'inventive concept."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82-83, 77- 78, 72-73). Alice Step one: Are the claims at issue directed to a patent-ineligible concept? Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method claim, which includes the steps of: (i) "receiving ... a first request from a user for registering a first product ... including a first machine-readable code that uniquely represents the first product"; (ii) "identifying ... product information based on the first machine-readable code ... transmitting ... product information ... receiving ... product information ... wherein the product information includes a serial number of the first product and a manufacturer identifier (ID) identifying the manufacturer of the first product ... storing ... at least a portion of the product information of the first product"; (iii) "identifying a retailer from which the first product was purchased based on the first 8 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 machine-readable code ... transmitting ... purchase information ... receiving ... purchase information of the first product ... wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction"; (iv) "storing ... at least a portion of the purchase information of the first product"; (v) "storing product registration information of the first product ... the product registration information including the product information and the purchase information of the product"; (vi) "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product ... storing the list of communications channels in a user profile of the user to be associated with the first product"; (vii) "transmitting the list of the communication channels ... wherein the list of communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent"; and (viii) "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel ... routing .. . information of the user and relevant information of the first product ... further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and ... further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." Each of the method steps of claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea because such step is either: ( 1) "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce," Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 9 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 2356, or (2) collecting, analyzing, and storing data, see, e.g., Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results" is "directed to an abstract idea"); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("collecting data, ... recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and ... storing that recognized data in a memory" is an abstract idea); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., 555 F. App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("the claim at issue here involves a mental process excluded from section 101 : the mental steps of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify medical options"). For example, the steps of: (i) "receiving ... a first request from a user for registering a first product ... including a first machine-readable code that uniquely represents the first product"; (vi) "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product . . . storing the list of communications channels in a user profile of the user to be associated with the first product"; (vii) "transmitting the list of the communication channels ... wherein the list of communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent"; and (viii) "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel ... routing ... information of the user and relevant information of the first product ... further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and ... further 10 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session" are abstract concepts related "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce"-warranty registration for purchased items having a universal product code (UPC) and technical support (e.g., phone or Internet communications with a live operator). See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. Moreover, the remaining steps of: (ii) "identifying ... product information based on the first machine-readable code ... transmitting ... product information ... receiving ... product information ... wherein the product information includes a serial number of the first product and a manufacturer identifier (ID) identifying the manufacturer of the first product ... storing ... at least a portion of the product information of the first product"; (iii) "identifying a retailer from which the first product was purchased based on the first machine-readable code ... transmitting purchase information ... receiving ... purchase information of the first product ... wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction"; (iv) "storing ... at least a portion of the purchase information of the first product"; and (v) "storing product registration information of the first product ... the product registration information including the product information and the purchase information of the product" are abstract concepts related to the collection, analysis, and storage of data on a database. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; SmartGene, 555 F. App'x at 955. Claim 9, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim, and claim 24, a data processing system claim, recite limitations similar to 11 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 those discussed with respect to claim 1. Thus, claims 9 and 24 are also directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Alice Step two: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept? Because claims 1, 9, and 24 are directed to an abstract idea, the question is whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements, that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 is a computer-implemented method claim, which includes "a server running on [a] server hardware having a processor and memory," "a scanner or camera of the mobile device," "remote back end system," "product database," and "client database." Claim 9, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim, and claim 24, a data processing system claim, recite similar computer hardware limitations. The claimed hardware components, including "a server running on a server hardware having a processor and memory," "a scanner or camera of the mobile device," "remote backend system," "product database," and "client database" are generic, purely conventional computer elements. Thus, the claims do no more than require generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions, rather than improve computer capabilities. Accordingly, appending a conventional "server running on [a] server hardware having a processor and memory," "scanner or camera of the mobile device," "remote backend system," "product database," and "client database" to an abstract idea is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere 12 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). First, Appellants argue that "the Office Action fails to specifically point out factual evidence that supports a finding that claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea" (Br. 25) because the Examiner has engaged in impermissible piecemeal analysis in evaluating the claims for subject matter eligibility and states that the claims are "directed towards registering products and product support which is considered to be an abstract idea" - without identifying the relevant factors considered or providing any specific factual evidence to support this conclusion (id. at 25-26) and the Office Action simply states the claims are directed to "an abstract idea inasmuch as collect and storing product information and allowing the user to contact service provider based on that stored information are activities that are considered both fundamental economic or business practices, methods of organizing human activity, an idea of itself, and a mathematical relationship or formula" - without identifying the specific limitations considered or any tangible support or rationale to support this conclusion as to why the alleged abstract idea qualifies as fundamental economic or business practices, method of organizing human activity, an idea of itself, and/or a mathematical relationship or formula (id. at 26 (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously, with respect to identifying a patent-ineligible concept, the Examiner correctly identified the appropriate judicial exceptions as "a fundamental economic practice," in addition to collecting, analyzing, and storing data, under part one of the Alice test. (Final Act. 3.) Appellants are improperly conflating part one of the Alice test with part two of the Alice test, which includes consideration of an element or combination of elements to determine if the claim recites "additional features." 13 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Second, Appellants argue that "the Office Action merely states the claims 'do not offer "significantly more" than the abstract ideas itself' - without identifying the specific limitations considered or any tangible support or rationale as to why these limitations, as a whole, are not enough to qualify as improvements and therefore 'significantly more.'" (Br. 26-27 (emphases omitted).) Similarly, Appellants argue that "the Examiner should consider elements of each claim, both 'individually' and 'as an ordered combination,' for purposes of determining whether the elements in the claims are directed to 'something more' and are thereby transformed into a patent-eligible invention" and "the Examiner has engaged in impermissible piecemeal analysis in evaluating the claims for subject matter eligibility and has therefore not considered each of claims 1, 9, and 1 7 as a whole." (Br. 28.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner found that "[t ]he elements in the instant claims (computer, server, mobile device, database, backend, medium, processor and memory), when taken in combination, together do not offer 'significantly more' than the abstract idea itself." (Final Act. 3--4). Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the computer hardware limitations recited in claim 1 as an ordered combination. Third, Appellants argue that "[t]he Office Action incorrectly compared claims 1, 9, and 17 to the claims of SmartGene that hold no precedence because its ruling was prior to the Alice Corp. determination and other more recent federal circuit cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., .. , which is analogous to claims 1, 9, and 17 as being directed to statutory eligible subject matter by 'expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites."' (Br. 27 (emphases omitted).) However, other than merely citing generalized conclusion statements from 14 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 DDR, Appellants do not explain how this case pertains to claims 1, 9, and 24. Fourth, Appellants argue that "[i]n Alice, four examples of abstract ideas were referenced: fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; abstract ideas themselves; and mathematical relationships and mathematical formulas" (Br. 28) and accordingly, Appellants argue, "the present claims, as a whole, provide a user with a one- touch platform for registering and providing technical support of products with minimal inconvenience by establishing and outputting a live communication session between a mobile device and a support agent based on a touch plan that is generated to provide the agent with information of the user and product- which is not an intangible, abstract idea" (id. at 28-29; see also id. at 31-32, 35-36, 37-38.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, as discussed previously, abstract concepts such as "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce" include warranty registration for purchased items having a UPC and technical support (e.g., communications with a live operator). See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. Last, Appellants argue that "[a]lthough claim 1 does recite providing a user with a one-touch platform for registering and providing technical support of products, the Office Action ignores other meaningful limitations." (Br. 29.) In particular, Appellants argue that "the result of claim 1 is to output 'a live communication session' between a mobile device and a support agent based on a touch plan that is generated to provide the agent with information of the user and product - which is a tangible non-abstract outcome" and "claim 1 also includes receiving 'a first machine-readable code that uniquely represents the first product, wherein ... the first machine- 15 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 readable code is obtained by scanning the first machine-readable code from the first product the user has acquired using a scanner or camera of the mobile device' - which can also be considered a tangible non-abstract limitation." (Br. 29; see also id. at 39--40.) However, Appellants do not adequately explained why the claim "purport[ s] to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. In particular, Appellants have not explained why the "live communication session" and "first machine-readable code" limitations, both of which are fundamental economic practices, improve the function of a computer or other technology. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 9, and 1 7 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 24--26 depend from independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20, and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 17. § 103 Rejection---Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 66----67, 75) that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "receiving from the user a list of one or more 16 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product," "transmitting the list of the communication channels to the mobile application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent," and "in response to a selection of one of the communication channels received from the mobile application of the mobile device, establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman, in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and the product registration database of Suliman, collectively correspond to the limitations "to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product," "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product," and "the mobile application of the mobile device." (Final Act. 5-7, 24.) The Examiner further found that the status indicator for network users of Shafrir corresponds to the limitations "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user," "transmitting the list of the communication channels ... wherein the list of communication channels are preferred," and "in response to a selection of one of the communication channels ... establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." (Final Act. 22-23; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t 17 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability allow the user to tailor the communications channels to those the user prefers as shown in Shafrir since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 24; see also Ans. 74-- 75.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. Suliman relates to "electronic collection and utilization of product warranty registration information." (i-f 2.) Suliman explains that the registration system can be linked to service organizations, such that "[ c ]onsumers can schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local service organizations at the touch of a button." (i-f 14.) Suliman also explains that "consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product information and communicate that product information to the product registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), which includes a consumer profile (i-fi-f 65---67). Suliman further explains that consumer device 50 can be a wireless telephone. (i-f 42.) Thus, because Suliman explains that the warranty registration system of Suliman permits consumers to schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered products, Suliman teaches the limitation "to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product," and "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." Moreover, because Suliman explains that consumers can use consumer device 50 (e.g., a wireless phone) to communicate with product registration database 20, Suliman teaches the limitation "the mobile application of the mobile device." Shafrir relates to "presenting a user status indicator for network users on the system and establish communications with network users through the 18 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 user status indicator." (Col. 1, 11. 18-21.) In particular, Shafrir explains that "[t]he network user may set a communication options preference so that communication options are presented to a network user in the following order: 1) electronic mail; 2) chat; 3) audiovisual call; 4) page; 5) facsimile." (Col. 6, 11. 8-12.) Because Shafrir explains that the network user can set communications options preferences, Shafrir teaches the limitations "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user," "transmitting the list of the communication channels ... wherein the list of communication channels are preferred," "in response to a selection of one of the communication channels ... establishing, by a multi-channel communication system," and "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." The combination of Suliman and Shafrir is nothing more than incorporating the known communication options preference of Shafrir with the known warranty registration system of Suliman, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). In particular, the combination of Suliman and Shafrir incorporates the communications options preferences of Shafrir into the consumer device 50 of Suliman, which communicates with product registration database 20, and can be used to schedule repairs and maintenance. Accordingly, the combination of Suliman and Shafrir teaches the limitations "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product," "transmitting the list of the communication channels to the mobile 19 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent," and in response to a selection of one of the communication channels received from the mobile application of the mobile device, establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel. Appellants argue that "Suliman specifically lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggest 'receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product,' as set forth in claim 1" (Br. 66 (emphasis omitted)) and Suliman discloses a webpage that offers various links where a user can find, for example, auctions sites or organizations that can service and repair the user's product - not a list of one or more communication channels preferred by the user that offer a one-touch platform to contact a live support agent for technical support of the user's products (id. at 66----67 (emphasis omitted)). However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited to Shafrir, rather than Suliman, for teaching the limitation "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user." (Final Act. 24.) Appellants further argue that Shafrir discloses a collaborative application with indicators of concurrent users that may communication [sic] with each other - not receiving/transmitting/establishing a live communication session between a user's mobile device and a support agent, who is specialized on the registered product, using a selected communication channel from a list of one or more communication channels, which are preferred/based on a user 20 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 profile, to provide the user with technical support of the registered product. (Br. 76.) However, as discussed previously, the Examiner cited to Suliman, rather than Shafrir, for teaching the limitations "to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product," "the mobile application of the mobile device," and "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants cannot show non- obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "receiving from the user a list of one or more communications channels preferred by the user to contact a support agent associated with the server for technical support of the first product," "transmitting the list of the communication channels to the mobile application of the mobile device, wherein the list of communication channels are preferred by the user based on the user profile of the user to communicate with a live support agent," and in response to a selection of one of the communication channels received from the mobile application of the mobile device, establishing, by a multi-channel communication system, a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel. Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 70) that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula 21 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend system associated with the retailer," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend system, wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction," and "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman, in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and product registration database 20 of Suliman, which communicates with consumer device 50 to electronically receive the product information, collectively correspond to the limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend system associated with the retailer," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend system," and "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." (Final Act. 5-8; see also Ans. 73.) The Examiner also found that the user status indicator of Shafrir, which provides the user with communication options, corresponds to the limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." (Final Act. 21-22; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner further found that electronic registration system of Rodgers corresponds to the limitation "purchase information ... wherein the 22 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction." (Final Act. 15- 16; see also Ans. 74.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability allow the user to tailor the communications channels to those the user prefers as shown in Shafrir since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 24; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner further concluded that It would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability obtain purchase information from the machine code by identifying the retailer where the product was purchased and obtaining the information from the retailer systems as shown in Rogers since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. (Final Act. 16.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. As discussed previously, Suliman explains that "[c]onsumers can schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local service organizations at the touch of a button" (i-f 14). Suliman also explains that "consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product information and communicate that product information to the product registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), such that product registration database 20 includes product type, manufacturer, and serial number (i-f 54). Suliman further explains that consumer device 50 can be a wireless telephone. (i-f 42.) Figure 8 of Suliman illustrates a screen shot of an account summary web page (i-f 25), such that "server 15 of the registration system 10 generates an account summary page 800 accessible through network 200'' (i-f 62). Because Suliman explains that server 15 of the registration system 10 23 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 communicates with consumer device 50 to electronically receive product registration database 20, Suliman teaches the limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend system," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend system," and "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." Also discussed previously, Shafrir explains that "[t]he network user may set a communication options preference so that communication options are presented to a network user in the following order: 1) electronic mail; 2) chat; 3) audiovisual call." (Col. 6, 11. 8-11.) Because Shafrir explains that one of the communications options is "chat," Shafrir teaches the limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." Rogers relates to "[a]n electronic registration system which facilitates authorized product returns." (Abstract.) In particular, Rogers explains that with respect to the electronic registration system, "individual product identification information (such as a serial number) is stored in a local transaction database along with additional information including at least the date of the transaction" and that "local transaction database may include, for example, sales made by a particular store or sales made by several affiliated stores and is not necessarily co-located with the point of sale." (i-f 10.) Because Rogers explains that the electronic registration system includes transaction date, serial number, and sale made at a particular store, Rogers teaches the limitations "purchase information" and "wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product 24 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction." The combination of Suliman, Shafrir, and Rogers is nothing more than incorporating the known electronic registration system of Rogers with the known warranty registration system of Suliman, as modified by Shafrir, to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In particular, the combination of Suliman and Shafrir would incorporate the communications options preferences of Shafrir into the consumer device 50 of Suliman, which communicates with product registration database 20, and can be used to schedule repairs and maintenance. Thus, the combination of Suliman and Shafrir teaches the limitation "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." Appellants argue that [Rogers] discloses a product registration system for a retail store that may search a manufacturer database to determine warranty product information but does not disclose transmitting/receiving via an application program interface (API) a request for purchase information to a proper remote backend system, including a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the respective product, that can be used during a live communication session between a technical support agent and a mobile device user. (Br. 70 (emphasis omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Suliman, rather than Rogers, for teaching the limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend system associated with the retailer," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend system, wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from 25 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction," and "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." (Final Act. 5-8.) Moreover, the Examiner cited to Shafrir, rather than Rogers, for teaching the limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." (Final Act. 22.) Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "transmitting via a second API a third request for purchase information to a second remote backend system associated with the retailer," "receiving via the second API purchase information of the first product from the second remote backend system, wherein the purchase information includes an address of the retailer from which the first product was purchased, a transaction ID identifying a transaction of purchasing the first product, and a date of the transaction," and "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 73-74) that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a 26 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 touch plan based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store" and routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with information of the user and relevant information of the first product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session. The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman, in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and the product registration database of Suliman, collectively correspond to the limitation "based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store." (Final Act. 19-20; see also id. at 5-7.) The Examiner also found that the customer interaction record of Gumbula corresponds to the limitation "wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." (Final Act. 25-26; see also Ans. 77-78.) The Examiner further found that the mobile device notification of Clayton having a "call now" button corresponds to the limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor" and "routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support agent." (Final Act. 18-19; see also Ans. 80.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability to record activities between the service agent 27 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 and the caller during the service call as shown in Gumbula since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 26-27.) The Examiner further concluded that It would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability [to] generate a plan of product information which is then provided to the service agent upon an initial service request as shown in Clayton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. (Final Act. 20.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. As discussed previously, Suliman explains that the registration system can be linked to service organizations, such that "[ c ]onsumers can schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local service organizations at the touch of a button." (i-f 14.) Suliman further explains that "consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product information and communicate that product information to the product registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), such that product registration database 20 including product type, manufacturer, and serial number (i-f 54). Thus, Suliman teaches the limitations "based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store." Clayton relates to "[ n ]otifying users of mobile communication devices, which may include providing options for response to notifications." (Abstract.) Figure 8 of Clayton illustrates an example of a notification originating from a source external to the communication service provider (i-f 12), for example, a user being notified of nearing a credit-line threshold for a credit card account (i-f 51). In particular, Clayton explains that "[t]he user is also given three additional options: the user can call the credit card company by selecting a button 802 associated with a 'call now' option." 28 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 (Id.) Because the mobile communication device of Clayton includes a button with a "call now" option, Clayton teaches the limitation "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor" and "routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support agent." Gumbula relates to call centers, in particular, "processing calls in call centers wherein a caller's matter is handled by more than one agent" (i-f l ), such that "the caller's matter may be handled by multiple agents without requiring that the caller repeat information to agents" (i-f 8). Figure 3 of Gumbula illustrates a customer interaction record (CIR) (i-f 12), which includes: (i) field 310, the caller's name, address, and telephone number; (ii) field 320, items purchased by the caller and the dates of purchase; (iii) field 320, the status of any warranties on the items purchased; and (iv) field 330 records of previous interactions that the connected caller (i-f 23). Because Gumbula explains that the CIR includes caller information, items with dates of purchase, and previous caller interaction, Gumbula teaches the limitation "the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." The combination of Suliman, Gumbula, and Clayton, is nothing more than incorporating known customer interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula and the known mobile device notification of Clayton having a "call now" button, with the known warranty registration system of Suliman, to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In particular, the combination of Suliman, Gumbula, and Clayton would incorporate the "call now" option button of Clayton with the registration system of Suliman, having product 29 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 registration database 20 and accordingly, teaches the limitation "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a touch plan based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store." Moreover, the combination of Suliman, Gumbula, and Clayton would incorporate the "call now" option button of Clayton with the customer interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula, and thus, teaches the limitation routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with information of the user and relevant information of the first product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session. Appellants argue that: [a ]t best, Clayton discloses a mobile device notification with options where a user may receive a notification that the user is reaching his/her minutes-of-use or credit card limit, then the notification provides the user with some options, such as 1) being directed to manually call the telephone/credit card company, or 2) a button associated with a "call now" option that if selected calls the respective company directly (i.e., the button is only used to make a "call now" and the button is not based on a product, let alone based on product and purchase information associated with a registered product that was purchased by a user), and thus the user selects one button associated with one of the provided options. (Br. 73-74 (emphasis omitted).) Accordingly, Appellants argue, Clayton does not disclose generating a touch plan that includes product and purchase information of a registered product retrieved from a user asset store, and then routing the touch plan to a live support agent, which provides the support agent with the user's personal information and relevant information of the 30 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 registered product, such as product information, purchase information, and history of the user, in order to provide the user with specialized technical support of the registered product. (Id. at 74 (citation omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Suliman, rather than Clayton, for teaching the limitation "based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store" (Final Act. 19-20) and cited to Gumbula, rather than Clayton, for teaching the limitation "further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session" (id. at 25-26). Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See Keller, 642 F .2d at 426. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor, a touch plan based on the product information of the first product and purchase information of the first product retrieved from the user asset store" and routing, by a case management module, the touch plan to the support agent, the touch plan providing the support agent with information of the user and relevant information of the first product, wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session. 31 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 78-79) that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel" and "wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." The Examiner found that the warranty registration system of Suliman, in which consumers can schedule repairs and maintenance, and the product registration database of Suliman, collectively correspond to the limitation "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." (Final Act. 19-20; see also id. at 5-7.) The Examiner also found that the user status indicator of Shafrir, which provides the user with communication options, corresponds to the limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." (Final Act. 22; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner further found that the mobile device notification of Clayton having a "call now" button corresponds to the limitations "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor." (Final Act. 18-19; see also Ans. 80.) In addition, the Examiner found that the customer interaction record of Gumbula corresponds to the limitation "the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support 32 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 agent during the live communication session." (Final Act. 25-26; see also Ans. 77-78.) The Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability allow the user to tailor the communications channels to those the user prefers as shown in Shafrir since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 24; see also Ans. 74--75.) The Examiner also concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability to record activities between the service agent and the caller during the service call as shown in Gumbula since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements." (Final Act. 26-27.) The Examiner further concluded that [i]t would have been obvious ... to include in the product registration system of Suliman the ability generate a plan of product information which is then provided to the service agent upon an initial service request as shown in Clayton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. (Final Act. 20.) We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. As discussed previously, Suliman explains that the registration system can be linked to service organizations, such that "[ c ]onsumers can schedule repairs and maintenance for their registered products with local service organizations at the touch of a button." (i-f 14.) Suliman further explains that "consumer device 50 is used to electronically receive the product information and communicate that product information to the product registration database 20" (i-f 61 ), such product registration database 20 including product type, manufacturer, and serial number (i-f 54). Suliman explains that such consumer device 50 includes "other portable communication device such as a ... wireless or wired telephone." (i-f 42.) Thus, Suliman teaches the limitations "session between the mobile device 33 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." Also discussed previously, Shafrir relates to "presenting a user status indicator for network users on the system and establish communications with network users through the user status indicator." (Col. 1, 11. 18-21.) Shafrir explains that "[t]he network user may set a communication options preference so that communication options are presented to a network user in the following order: 1) electronic mail; [and] 2) chat" (col. 6, 11. 8-11). Because Shafrir explains that one of the communications options is "chat," Shafrir teaches the limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel." Also discussed previously, Figure 8 of Clayton illustrates an example of a notification originating from a source external to the communication service provider (i-f 12), for example, a user being notified of nearing a credit-line threshold for a credit card account (i-f 51 ). In particular, Clayton explains that "[t]he user is also given three additional options: the user can call the credit card company by selecting a button 802 associated with a 'call now' option." (Id.) Because the mobile communication device of Clayton includes a button with a "call now" option, Clayton teaches the limitation "generating, by a touch plan engine executed by the processor." Also discussed previously, Figure 3 of Gumbula illustrates a customer interaction record (CIR) (i-f 12), which includes: (i) field 310, the caller's name, address, and telephone number; (ii) field 320, items purchased by the caller and the dates of purchase; (iii) field 320, the status of any warranties on the items purchased; and (iv) field 330 records of previous interactions that the connected caller (i-f 23). Because Gumbula explains that the CIR 34 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 includes caller information, items with dates of purchase and previous caller interaction, Gumbula teaches the limitation "the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." The combination of Suliman, Shafrir, Clayton, and Gumbula, is nothing more than incorporating the known communication options preference of Shafrir, the known mobile communication device of Clayton having a button with a "call now" option, and the known customer interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula with the known warranty registration system of Suliman, to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In particular, the combination of Suliman and Shafrir would incorporate the communications options preferences of Shafrir into the consumer device 50 of Suliman, which communicates with product registration database 20, and can be used to schedule repairs and maintenance, and accordingly, teaches the limitation "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel." Moreover, the combination of Clayton and Gumbula would result in a mobile communication device of Clayton having a button with a "call now" option, such that customer interaction record (CIR) of Gumbula would include caller information, items with dates of purchase and previous caller interaction, and accordingly, teaches the limitation "wherein the touch plan further includes the product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." 35 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Appellants argue that: [a ]t best, Gumbula discloses a context recovery for call center agents that provides voice recordings of a prior agent to a subsequent agent - not establishing a live communication session between a user's mobile device and a support agent, who is specialized on the registered product and thus no recordings or forwarding of calls is required), and routing a touch plan, which includes user information, product information, purchase information, history data of the user, and live activities between the user and support agent during the live communication session, to provide the user with specialized technical support of the registered product. (Br. 78-79 (emphasis omitted).) However, the Examiner cited to Suliman, rather than Gumbula, for teaching the limitation "session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product." (Final Act. 19-20.) Moreover, the Examiner cited to Shafrir, rather than Gumbula for teaching the limitation "a live communication session ... using the selected communication channel" (Final Act. 22) and cited to Clayton, rather than Gumbula, for teaching the limitation "a touch plan engine" (id. at 18- 19). Again, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations "a live communication session between the mobile device and a support agent who is specialized for the first product using the selected communication channel" and "product information of the first product, purchase information of the first product, and history data of the user, and the touch plan further records 36 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 activities between the user and the support agent during the live communication session." Although Appellants nominally argue that the Examiner's articulated reasoning for combining Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula is erroneous (Br. 80-83), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why such reasoning is improper. Instead, Appellants merely provide the following conclusory statements: Given that each of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula is related to solving different problems and their approaches are completely different, it logically follows that there are no apparent reasons to combine these six references in order to achieve each and every one of the disclosures set forth in claim 1. In addition, one with ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula, would not combine these references, because it lacks reasonable expectation of success. (Id. at 80-81 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner's proposed combination would not operate unless some key features of at least one of the six different elements disclosed by Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula were discarded from the combination. This would require a change in the principle of operation of at least one of Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, and Gumbula. (Id. at 81 (emphases omitted).) Accordingly, without additional explanation, Appellants have not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to these claims. Moreover, Appellants has not provided any evidence that the proposed combination would be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 37 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent claims 9 and 17 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 1 7 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Claims 2, 10, and 18 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 separately (Br. 83-86), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: the cited sections of Suliman disclose ... a webpage that offers various links where a user can find, for example, auctions sites or organizations that can service and repair the user's product - but do not disclose generating a third list of communication channels based on the first and second lists of communication channels, where the third list of communication channels are preferred by both the user and the first client, in order to off er the user a one-touch platform to contact a live support agent for technical support of the user's products, as set forth in claim 2. (Id. at 84--85 (emphases omitted).) the cited sections of Shafrir disclose . . . a collaborative application with indicators of concurrent users that may communication with each other - not generating a third list of communication channels based on the first and second lists of communication channels, where the third list of communication channels are preferred by both the user and the first client, in order to offer the user a one-touch platform to contact a live support agent for technical support of the user's products, as set forth in claim 2. 38 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 (Id. at 85 (emphases omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 2 are distinguishable over Suliman and Shafrir, Appellants merely summarize each reference individually with a conclusory statement that Suliman and Shafrir do not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 2. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he 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."). Claims 10 and 18 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 2. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, from which claims 2, 10, and 18 depend. Claims 3, 11, and 19 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 separately (Br. 86-90), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: the cited sections of Suliman disclose ... a webpage that offers various links where a user can find, for example, auctions sites or organizations that can service and repair the user's product- but do not disclose generating a personalized page having summarized information of at least the first product, the personalized page including at least a portion of the product information and purchase information of the first product, and further including a first live support button to allow the user to initiate a live support of the first product, and where the fourth 39 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 request for live support is received from the mobile application in response to an activation of the first live support button displayed within the personalized page, as set forth in claim 3. (Id. at 88 (emphases omitted).) the cited sections of Clayton . . . disclose a mobile device notification with options where a user may receive a notification that the user is reaching his/her minutes-of use or credit card limit, then the notification provides the user with some options, such as 1) being directed to manually call the telephone/credit card company, or 2) a button associated with a "call now" option that if selected calls the respective company directly (i.e., the button is only used to make a "call now" and the button is not based on a product, let alone based on product and purchase information associated with a registered product that was purchased by a user), and thus the user selects one button associated with one of the provided options. (Id. (emphases omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 3 are distinguishable over Suliman and Clayton, Appellants merely summarize each reference individually with a conclusory statement that Suliman and Clayton do not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 3. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claims 11 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 3. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, and 1 7, from which claims 3, 11, and 19 depend. 40 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 § 103 Rejection---Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, and Paas Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 4 separately (App. Br. 90-92), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Paas discloses a system and method for home screen interface integrating application and system status. Paas further discloses a home screen user interface that provides application slots for invoking application interfaces for data communications, voice communication, and calendar functions, such as the user's activities for that current day. (Br. 91 (citations omitted).) However, Paas lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests "accessing a product intelligence store to determine whether there is a pending notification for a rebate, an offer to upgrade, or a recall of the first product;" and "including in the personalized page information of the pending notification, including indicating a number of pending notifications available for the first product, wherein the number of pending notification is displayed within the personal page by the mobile application," as set forth in claim 4. (Id. (emphases omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 4 are distinguishable over Paas, Appellants merely summarize Paas with a conclusory statement that Paas does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 4. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claims 12 and 20 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 4. We are not persuaded by these arguments 41 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, and 1 7, from which claims 4, 12, and 20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas, and Spreen Claims 5 and 13 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 5 separately (Br. 92-94 ), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Spreen discloses a system for providing localized shopping information. Spreen further discloses product detail page that may be provided to a user in response to a search for local retailers carrying a desired product, and may further provide some product and promotional information. (Id. at 93 (citations omitted.)) However, Spreen lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products - let alone "determining a first resource location storing a specification of the first product;" and "including in the personalized page a first link corresponding to the first resource location, wherein the first link, when activated from the personalized page displayed by the mobile application, is to access the specification of the first product from the first resource location," as set forth in claim 5. (Id. (emphases omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 5 are distinguishable over Spreen, Appellants merely summarize Spreen with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 5. See 42 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Lovin, 65 2 F. 3 d at 13 5 7. Claim 13 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 5. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which claims 5 and 13 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Claims 6 and 14 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 6 separately (App. Br. 94--96), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Spreen discloses a system for providing localized shopping information. Spreen further discloses product detail page that may be provided to a user in response to a search for local retailers carrying a desired product, and may further provide some product and promotional information. (Id. at 95 (citations omitted).) However, Spreen lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products - let alone "determining a second resource location storing a user manual of the first product;" and "including in the personalized page a second link corresponding to the second resource location, wherein the second link, when activated from the personalized page displayed by the mobile application, is to access the user manual of the first product from the second resource location," as set forth in claim 6. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 6 are distinguishable over Spreen, Appellants merely summarize Spreen with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not 43 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 6. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claim 14 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 6. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which claims 6 and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas, Spreen, and Jones Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 7 separately (App. Br. 96-98), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Jones discloses a system and method of electronic advertisement and commerce. Jones further discloses a live chat- room sponsored by and/or maintained by a business entity, where the business entity may assist the customer, or the customer may discuss advertisements with other customers. (Br. 97 (citations omitted.) However, Jones lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products - let alone "determining a third resource location associated with a social community having a discussion forum for the first product;" and "including in the personalized page a third link corresponding to the second resource location, wherein the second link, when activated from the personalized page displayed by the mobile application, is to access the user manual of the first product from the second resource location," as set forth in claim 7. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 7 are distinguishable over Jones, Appellants merely 44 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 summarize Jones with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 7. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 7. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which claims 7 and 15 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Paas, Spreen, Jones, and Hayward Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 8 separately (Br. 98-100), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Hayward discloses a context sensitive web-based user support. Hayward further discloses an installation software that may include and execute a module to perform online registration, where the online registration provides blank fields to be filed out by the user, where the online registration senses a peripheral indicia at a computer, where the indicia includes any of a model or part number, a date of manufacturer, a serial number an even configuration information for peripherals that may have diverse reconfigurable parts; and then the process of registering the peripheral launches a communications browser to connect the registration server, where the user fills out the blank fields and the exact peripheral indicia are sent to the registration server. (Br. 99 (citations omitted.)) However, Hayward lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products - let alone "wherein the personalized page further includes the serial number of the first product, a registration date of the first product, a purchase date of the first 45 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 product, and warranty information of the first product," as set forth in claim 8. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 8 are distinguishable over Hayward, Appellants merely summarize Hayward with a conclusory statement that Hayward does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 8. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 8. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 9, from which claims 8 and 16 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection-Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Benoy, and MacLean Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 24 separately (Br. 100-104), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Benoy further discloses a gaming machine used to provide a method of registering a player to a loyalty program such as a player tracking program at the gaming machine. Benoy also discloses that in a gaming machine, a player tracking program is implemented using a player tracking unit installed in the gaming machine, where these player tracking/accounting systems are used in most casinos. Benoy further discloses that a cell phone may be used as a loyalty program instrument, where a player may enter loyalty program registration information for a "point of play" registration using the player's cell phone, and the cell phone may be used to communicate directly with the player 46 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 tracking unit, directly with gaming machine, or with a loyalty program server via a local network or combinations thereof. (Br. 101-102 (citations omitted).) However, Benoy lacks any disclosure that specifically teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products, in particular Benoy fails to teach or suggest "receiving a sixth request from the mobile application of the mobile device for registering a loyalty program subscribed by the user, the sixth request including a second machine- readable code uniquely representing the subscribed loyalty program, wherein the second machine-readable code was obtained by scanning a barcode of a loyalty card using a scanner or camera of the mobile device;" and "in response to the sixth request, accessing via a third API a third backend system of the retailer to obtain detailed loyalty information based on the second machine-readable code;" and then "storing the detailed loyalty information in the user asset store of the user, wherein the detailed loyalty information includes a program name and a loyalty number of the loyalty program," as set forth in claim 24. (Id. at 102 (emphasis omitted).) Similarly, Appellants argue the following: MacLean further discloses allowing two users to exchange reward currency, such as points, between two different loyalty programs at an exchange rate that is set by and agreed upon by the users themselves, particular loyalty programs may offer credits for upgrades, coupons, or other perks to its members rather than or in addition to points or miles, and a loyalty program has a database in which the account balances of the members of the loyalty program are stored. (Id. at 102-103 (citations omitted.)) However, MacLean lacks any disclosure that specifically teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products, in particular MacLean fails to teach or suggest "receiving a sixth request from the mobile application of the mobile device for registering a loyalty program subscribed by the user, the sixth request including a second 47 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 machine-readable code uniquely representing the subscribed loyalty program, wherein the second machine-readable code was obtained by scanning a barcode of a loyalty card using a scanner or camera of the mobile device;" and "in response to the sixth request, accessing via a third API a third backend system of the retailer to obtain detailed loyalty information based on the second machine-readable code;" and then "storing the detailed loyalty information in the user asset store of the user, wherein the detailed loyalty information includes a program name and a loyalty number of the loyalty program," as set forth in claim 24. (Id. at 103 (emphases omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 24 are distinguishable over Benoy and MacLean, Appellants merely summarize the references with a conclusory statement that Benoy and MacLean individually do not teach the features of this dependent claim. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 24 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. § 103 Rejection---Suliman, Attia, Rogers, Clayton, Shafrir, Gumbula, Benoy, MacLean, and Marriott Claim 25 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 25 separately (Br. 104--106), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim is separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: Marriott discloses a method of registering online to join Marriott rewards program. Marriott further discloses an online page where a user can locate a Marriott hotel by providing defined location information, and the online page provides various sign- up options, such as a "Use Points" option, an "Earn Points or 48 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 Miles" option, a "DreamRewards Tracker" option, and "News" options. (Id. at 105 (citations omitted.) However, Marriott clearly lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products, in particular Marriot [sic] fails to disclose "transmitting a loyalty page summarizing the subscribed loyalty program to the mobile application to be displayed in the mobile device, wherein the loyalty page includes a first link to access one or more offers offered by the loyalty program, a second link to find a nearby retail location of the first product, a third link to access an online community of the loyalty program, and a fourth link to access a Web site associated with the loyalty program," as set forth in claim 25. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 25 are distinguishable over Marriott, Appellants merely summarize Marriott with a conclusory statement that Marriott does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 25. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 25 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Claim 26 Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claim 26 separately (Br. 107-108), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim is separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue the following: 49 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 At best, Marriott discloses a method of registering online to join Marriott rewards program. Marriott further discloses an online page where a user can locate a Marriott hotel by providing defined location information, and the online page provides various sign-up options, such as a "Use Points" option, an "Earn Points or Miles" option, a "DreamRewards Tracker" option, and "News" options. (Id. at 107 (citations omitted.) However, Marriott clearly lacks any disclosure that teaches or suggests a method for registering and providing technical support of products, in particular Marriot [sic] fails to disclose "wherein the loyalty page further includes a second live support button to allow the user to initiate a live support session with a support agent concerning the loyalty program from the loyalty page," as set forth in claim 26. (Id. (emphasis omitted).) Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of claim 26 are distinguishable over Marriott, Appellants merely summarize Marriott with a conclusory statement that Spreen does not teach the features of this dependent claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claim 26. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 26 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 24--26 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). 50 Appeal2016-008230 Application 13/085,397 AFFIRMED 51 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation