`EXHIBIT 2029
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2029
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicantts)
`
`
`
`
` . . . _ 11i112.990 MCNALLY ET AL.
`
`
`Applicant-imitated interwew Summary
`‘
`:
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`
`MATTHEW BROPHY
`
`2191
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant‘s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) MATTHEW BHOPHY,
`
`(2) Lewis Bullock.
`
`Date of Interview: 14 October 201 1.
`
`(3)Micheal Fabiano.
`
`(4) Keith McNaiig.
`
`Type:
`
`El Video Conference
`[I Telephonic
`[XI Personal [copy given to: I] applicant
`
`|:| applicant‘s representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`[I Yes
`
`[I No.
`
`Issues Discussed D101 D112 E102 E103 DOthers
`(For each of the checked hoxfesj above. please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claimts) discussed: 103-127.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Coops Katie-sky, Micros et at.
`
`Substance of Interview
`[For each issue discussed. provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification orclarification of:
`reference or a portion thereof, claim interpretation. proposed amendments. arguments of any applied references etc...)
`
`iicant A iicant's re resentative examiner and SPE met to discuss ossible allowable sub'ect matter in the
`The
`case. The
`licant ave an overview of the invention and histor of the case. The A iicant ex lained the secondar
`factors evidence submitted to the office as evidence of non—obviousness. The Applicant described the claim
`amendment made in rernse to the November 2010 interview. in the interview, the applicant described the function of
`the menu generation system creating cascaded graphical user interface screens which are adaptable to different sized
`handheld devices. The applicant explained how the secondarv factors show non—obviousness. The examiners asked
`the applicant about several features of the invention .
`
`Applicant recordation Instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. [See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the lastOflice action has already been filed. applicant is given a non-extendabls period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview data, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of
`the substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP i13.04 for complete and proper rocordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentabiiity and the
`general results or outcome of the interview. to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issues raised
`
`El Attachment
`
`
`
`
`
` us Patent and Trademark Office
`PTDL413 (Rev Sl11i2010)
`Interview Summary
`Paper No. 20111215
`
`