IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Ex Part9 Reexamination of:
`
`US. Patent No. 7,010,508 to LOCKWOOD
`
`Confirmation No_: 1015
`
`Control No; 90f012,671
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Filed: September 15, 2012
`
`Examiner: REICI-ILE, Karin M.
`
`For: Automated Multimedia Data
`Processing Network
`
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Docket: 3323.002REX5
`
`Appeal Brief under 37 C.F.R. 41.37
`
`Mail Stop “Ex Parts Reexam”
`Atln: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
`
`independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9-15 of the ’508 patent and confirm those claims. First,
`
`the Examiner improperly ignored the § 131 Declarations and exhibits submitted by Patent Owner
`
`which establish that there is irrefutable evidence showing §§ 112 and 120 support proving Johnson is
`
`not a § 102(b) reference, but rather Johnson is a proper § 102(a) reference, and that there is
`
`irrefiitable evidence showing conception, diligence, and reduction to practice. Second, based on the
`
`Examiner's recognition that Johnson lacks bi-directional communications capability since it is a
`
`stand-alone system, Johnson does not read on claim 8 because the reasonable means-plus-function
`
`claim interpretation of the term “stored data,” means, e.g., data accessed from a remote location,
`
`which requires bi-directional communications capability.
`
`1
`
`Lockwood Exhibit 2006
`G81 v. Lockwood
`
`IPR2014-00025
`
`1
`
`Lockwood Exhibit 2006
`GSI v. Lockwood
`IPR2014-00025
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`Table of Contents
`
`<25?“
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 CPR. 41.37(c)(l)(i) — Real Party in Interest ....................................................................... 6
`
`37 CPR. 41 .37(c)(1)(ii) - Related appeals and interferences. .................................................. 6
`
`37 CPR. 41.37(c)(1)(iii) - Summary of claimed subject matter. . ............................................ 9
`
`37 CPR. 41 .37(c)(1)(iv) - Argument...................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Summary of the Argument........................................................................................... 10
`1.
`The anticipation rejection of claim 8 is improper because Johnson is not
`available as a reference. ................................................................................... 10
`
`2.
`
`a)
`b)
`
`Johnson does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).......... 12
`Johnson does not qualify as invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(a). .................................................................................................. 14
`Even if Johnson is not removed, claim 8 should be confirmed because
`Johnson fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least the claimed “stored data”
`as properly construed. ...................................................................................... 14
`a)
`The Examiner applied the wrong claim construction to the term “stored
`data.” .................................................................................................... 14
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with the prior BPAI
`decisions during original prosecution. ................................................. 15
`Johnson discloses a stand-alone computer system that cannot access
`data from a remote location. ................................................................ 16
`
`B.
`
`Argument ..................................................................................................................... 17
`1.
`Patent Owner’s Rule 131 Declarations prove conception, diligence and a
`reduction to practice of at least independent claim 8 that removes Johnson
`as a reference.................................................................................................... 17
`
`a)
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Conception occurred prior to September 1983 . ................................... 19
`Lockwood diligently worked on his invention from just before the
`effective date until the constructive reduction practice. ...................... 19
`Mr. Lockwood signed the Rule 131 Declaration on behalf of Patent
`Owner................................................................................................... 20
`
`2.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................... 20
`d)
`Even if Johnson is a proper reference, Johnson fails to disclose “stored
`data” properly interpreted to mean data accessed from a remote location in
`the claim feature “means for analyzing and for combining an user’s entry
`with a set of stored data.” ................................................................................. 20
`
`a)
`b)
`
`Reexamination claim construction case law ........................................ 21
`Proper interpretation of the term “means for analyzmg and for
`combining an user’s entry with a set of stored data,” requires
`interpretation of the term “set of stored data” to mean data accessed
`from a remote location ......................................................................... 23
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Technical expert’s understanding of what a POSITA would
`interpret as “stored data” is data accessed from a remote
`location ..................................................................................... 28
`
`The previous Board’s decision noting their understanding of
`“stored data” is data accessed from a remote location, and is
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`consistent with the specification and expert declaration
`evidence ................................................................................... 30
`
`The intrinsic evidence points to only one broad interpretation
`for “stored da ” — data accessed from a remote location........ 31
`
`Johnson’s “rules,” i.e., machine instructions, cannot anticipate
`the claimed “stored data,” e.g., data accessed from a remote
`location..................................................................................... 32
`
`Johnson’s use of rules does not disclose the claimed combining
`a user’s entry with data accessed from a remote location ........ 32
`Johnson is a standalone expert system that has no ability to
`communicate with any other device, and thus cannot access
`data from a remote location, e. g., cannot disclose “stored data”
`.................................................................................................. 36
`
`Johnson’s standalone system that operates using rules cannot
`disclose “means for analyzing and for combining an user’s
`entry with a set of stored data” where the “stored data” is
`accessed from a remote location .............................................. 37
`
`(3)
`
`Summary of Why claim 8 patentably distinguishes from
`Johnson .................................................................................... 37
`
`c)
`
`The combination of Johnson and AIC fails to establish prima facie
`obviousness because AIC fails to cure the deficiencies of Johnson with
`
`respect to claim 8 ................................................................................. 39
`
`V1.
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 40
`
`VII.
`
`37 cm. 41.37(c)(l)(v) - Claims Appendix ........................................................................... 41
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`I.
`
`Introduction1
`
`The Examiner improperly elevated form over substance to reach her decision rejecting
`
`independent claim 8 and the related dependent claims. She justified her decision on the fact that
`
`Patent Owner‘s Reply did not invoke the specific incantation that Johnson was not § 102(b) prior art.
`
`However, the Examiner improperly ignored the indisputable evidence submitted by Patent Owner
`
`irrefiitably establishing that Johnson is not invalidating prior art because it is not a 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) reference, but rather, a 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) reference, that Patent Owner could easily swear
`
`behind. First, Lockwood Exhibit B, provided to the Examiner, perfects the priority date on the face
`
`of the ’508 patent to the ’525 applicationf’359 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 120. Second,
`
`since priority is perfected, Johnson is a 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) date-reference that is removed by the 37
`
`CPR. § 1.131 Declarations and evidence. The Board should hold that the evidence removes
`
`Johnson as a proper reference, reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting the claims, and confirm
`
`those claims. Alternatively, the Board should send this proceeding back to the Examiner requiring
`
`the evidence be considered on the merits to allow Patent Owner to fill any alleged holes in the
`
`evidence. (Section V.B.l)
`
`Further, Johnson fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the elements of rejected independent
`
`claim 8 when the requirements for means-plus-function claim interpretation are correctly applied to
`
`the term “stored data” that appears in claim 8. When correctly construed “stored data” means data
`
`accessed flour a remote location. Johnson teaches a standalone computer uses “rules,” defined as
`
`1 Throughout the brief the following references will be made to the record:
`Order trailed 12/612
`
`Office Action 2/20/13
`
`Office Action or CA
`
`Interview 4124]] 3
`
`First Interview
`
`Second Advisory
`
`Reply 5/17/13
`
`Final 7/31/13
`
`Final or FOA
`
`Interview 9/31 13
`
`Second Interview
`
`Interview 9/11/13
`
`Third Interview
`
`Reply 9/26/13
`
`AF Reply
`
`Advisory Action 113/411 3
`
`First Advisory
`
`Reply 10/10/13
`
`2" AF Reply
`
`Advisory Action 10/18/13
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`machine instructions, to operate on facts and user input, but cannot perform any bi-directional
`
`commrmication, i.e., that cannot access anything remote fiom the standalone computer. Because
`
`Johnson’s “rules” do not anticipate at least the claimed “stored data,” Johnson is not invalidating
`
`prior art and, the rejections should be reversed and all the claims should be confirmed. (Section
`
`V.B.2).
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`II.
`
`37 GER. 41.37(c)(l)(i) — Real Party in Interest
`
`The real party in interest at the time this Appeal Brief is being filed is Mr. Larry Lockwood,
`
`inventor and owner, and exclusive licensee Landmark Technologies.
`
`1]].
`
`3'7 C.F.R. 41.37(e)(1)(ii) - Related appeals and interferences.
`
`”9.91 W153.953)
`Filing an: I'M-11-19811
`hunch: 11-16-1982
`l
`
`cum:
`Fitted-n; 10-10-1m
`Issue dale 07-02-1905
`
`yum-1,372
`magnets-1m
`amiss-st 00-12-1997
`
`meg-flow
`, mung-1'
`a:
`1904 7‘
`-: _‘”‘
`
`
`”(094214221
`fihgm‘nwmu
`land-u.- 12-09-1905
`—
`
`mmpggli‘flim
`In: the: 04-15-1900
`
`cum '
`4-97.15! “1613,53,
`mine he; 05-23-1905 l—> Pilinzm 05-24-1904
`ME'E‘Efii
`hunt-zggtL
`
`00001431
`Hinge-z 09-03-1991
`mm
`
`
`06821115
`Fume" «hum-244900W Mam-1988
`
`l
`
`«1000,1150
`mm; 03-10-1900W 10-31-1991
`
`011152.025
`Ping he: 09-3-1 991
`
`mm
`Piling «In: 02-18—1988
`.
`Amazes—1000
`
`
`
`_
`07.1462,“
`Hing (Ha: 01-09-1990
`AM 01-11-1991
`
`
`
`
`
`AM; 07-27-1993
`
`
`
`5,1",155 (03'116,164)
`9111:; h: 09-03-1993
`1511: an; 05.93.1994
`
`
`
`$096,610
`Hill! dill: 07-23-1993
`W 11-30-1994
`
`
`a 5M (OI-210,301)
`Filing an; 03-16-1994
`nun 1141qu
`
`
`
`$13.3" (WW-27°)
`
`1511.; am; 11.30.1994
`mm —-
`
`Bantams-11.2“"
`_
`Hugh: 05-05-2003
`enm nan-2007
`
`
`, 10 500 a 7
`
`
`1,52,;“($513
`
`
`kahuna-07.0005
` 09/511,553
`Abundant!
`”H.525
`90011685
`filing 11-; 05-05-2003
`Pm; bl: 09-15-2012
`
`900mm
`Hangman-144012
`mm 01-00-2013
`
`
`Garland: 01-13-2113 Calm 05-10-2013
`
`
`
`
`”012,611
`
`Pang-inn; 00-15-2012
`
`
`s
`‘
`.
`I
`-
`m!
`
`
`”ll-‘3‘
`“filfigh
`5m.
`-
`‘
`Plan-cm
`remind
`
`-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`00
`
`OO
`
`O0000
`
`CBM2014-00025 of US. Patent No. 7,010,508;
`CBM2014-00026 of US. Patent No. 5,576,951;
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Geelmet, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (N0. 6: 13CV00'7'62;2
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Hugo Boss USA, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00766);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. The ADT Corporation, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00758);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. The Ban-Ton Stores, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6:13CV00759);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Genesco Inc, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO. 6: 13CV00763);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Brunswick Corporation, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6:13CV00761);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00760);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Genuine Parts Company, (E.D.Tcx. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00764);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Gregg Appliances Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Oct 10, 2013) (N0.
`6: 13CV00765);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC v. Nacco Industries, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00763);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Samsonite LLC, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO. 6: 13CV00769);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. The Jones Group, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Oct 10, 2013) (NO.
`6:13CV00767);
`0 Oracle Corporation et al v. Landmark Technology LLC, (N.D.CAL. Jul 11, 2013) (N0.
`3:13CV03203);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Discovery Communications, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Jun 18, 2013)
`(NO. 6: 13CV00492);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Wacoal America, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Jun 18, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00496);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC v. Toto USA Holdings Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Jun 18, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00495);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC v. Spreadshirt Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Jun 18, 2013) (NO. 6: 13CV00494);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Johnson Outdoors Inc, (E.D.Tex. Jim 18, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00493);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Vitacostcom, Inc, (E.D.Tex. May 22, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00414);
`o Landmark Technoloy, LLC v. World Wrestling EntertainmentInc, (E.D.Tex. May 22, 2013)
`(N0. 6:13CV00416);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC V. Tempur-Pedic International Inc, (E.D.Tcx. May 22, 2013)
`(N0. 6:13CV00413);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC v. I'Robot Corporation, (E.D.Tex. May 22, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV0041 1);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc, (E.D.Tex. May 22, 2013) (NO.
`6: 13CV00417);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Cache, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Dec 21, 2012) (NO. 6: 12CV00999);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC v. Blismvorld, LLC, (E.D.Tex. Dec 21, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00997);
`
`2 To the best of Appellant’s understanding and knowledge, most of these litigations have settled except for Hugo Boss
`USA, Inc.; The ADT Corporation; Genesco Inc.; Brunswick Corporation; Briggs 8r. Stratton Corporation; Gregg
`Appliances, Inc.; Samsonite LLC; The Jones Group, Inc.; Vitaoostcom, Inc; Tempur-Pedic International Inc.; and iRobot
`Corporation, which are still pending.
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`OO
`
`00
`
`OO
`
`00
`
`Landmark Technology v. Brinker International, Inc. et al, (E.D.Tex. Dec 21, 2012) (NO.
`6: 120V00998);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Fifi‘h & Pacific Companies, Inc. et al, (E.D.Tex. Dec 20, 2012)
`(No. 6:12CV00952);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Airgas, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Dec 11, 2012) (NO. 6:12CV00930);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Barberry Limited, (E.D_Tcx. Dec 11, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00932);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc, (E.D.TCX. Doc 11, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00933);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Belk, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Dec 11, 2012) (N0. 6:12CV00931);
`Landmark Technology LLC v. Applied Industrial Technologies Inc, (E.D.Tex. Nov 30, 2012)
`(NO. 6: lZCV00909);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Henry Schein, Inc, (E.D.Tex. NOV 30, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00911);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, (E.D.Tcx. Oct 02, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00735);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Polaris Industries, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Nov 30, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00910);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Tractor Supply Company, (E.D.Tex. Sep 19, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00671),;
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Ann Inc, (E.D.Tex. Sep 19, 2012) (N0. 6:12CV00672);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Cintas Corporation, (E.D.Tex. Sep 07, 2012) (NO.
`6: 120V00605);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. PetSmart, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Sep 07, 2012) (N0. 6:12CV00606);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Cintas Corporation, (E.D.Tex. Sep 07, 2012) (NO.
`6: 120V00605;
`
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc, CE.D.TCX. Aug 31, 2012) (N0.
`6: 12CV00593);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. The Toro Company, (E.D.Tex. Aug 31, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00592);
`landmark Technology, LLC v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Aug 31, 2012)
`(NO. 6:12CV00590);
`Eizo Nanao Corporation et al v. Landmark Technology LLC, (C.D.CAL. Aug 06, 2012) (N0.
`8: 12CV01263);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc, (E.D.Tex. J11] 23, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00474);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Destination Maternity Corporation, (E.D.Tex. Jun 01, 2012)
`(N0. 6:12CV00358);
`Gunze Plastics Engineering Corporation Q"America v. Landmark Technology, LLC,
`01m. May 18,2012) (N0. 2:12cv02297);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. DSW: Inc, (E.D.Tcx. May 18, 2012) (NO. 6: 12CV0033'7);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. The Leather Factory, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Apr 20, 2012) (N0.
`6: 12CV00276);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Delia '5, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Apr 04, 2012) (NO. 6: 12CV00248);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. LA-Z—BOY, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Mar 30, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00226);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Mar 19, 2012) (N0.
`6: 12CV00159);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc, (E.D_Tcx. Mar 09, 2012)
`(N0. 6: 12CV001 17);
`Landmark Technology LLC v. Shoe Carnival, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Mat 02, 2012) (N0.
`6: 1201100108);
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`0 Landmark Technology LLC v. New York& Company, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Feb 17, 2012) (NO.
`6: 120V00073);
`0 Landmark Technology, LLC v. Coldwater Creek Inc, (E.D.Tex. Feb 09, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV00064);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC 1:. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Jan 31, 2012) (NO.
`6: 12CV0005 0);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Maidenfonn Brands, Inc, (E.D.Tcx. Jan 19, 2012) (N0.
`6: 12CV00028);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Zumiez, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Jan 06, 2012) (NO. 6: 12CV00006);
`Landmark Technology, LLC v. Hibbett Sports, Inc, (E.D.Tex. Dec 30, 2011) (N0.
`6: 1 lCV00709);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Body Central Corp et al, (E.D.Tex. Jun 21, 2011) (NO.
`6: 1 1CV00322);
`o Landmark Technology, LLC v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. et al, (E.D.Tcx. Feb 23, 2011) (N0.
`6: l 1 CV00091);
`0 Landmark Technology LLC v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc. et al, (E.D.Tcx. Oct 21, 2010) (N0.
`6: IOCV005 54);
`Landmark Technology LLC v. Blockbuster Inc, (E.D.Tex. Sep 27, 2010) (NO. 6: 10CV00507);
`Landmark Technology LLC v. Blockbuster Inc. et al, (E.D.Tex. Jun 17, 2010) (N0.
`6: lOCV00302);
`0 Landmark Technology LLC v. Aeropostale et al, (E.D.Tex. Jun 10, 2009) (NO.
`6:09CV00262); and
`o Landmark Technology LLC v. Zale Corporation at al,
`6:08CV00377).
`
`00
`
`00
`
`(E.D.Tcx. Scp 25, 2008) (NO.
`
`IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iii) - Summary of claimed subject matter.
`
`Presently, claims 8-16 stand rejected in this reexamination, with claim 8 being the sole
`
`independent claim rejected. The chart below sets forth a summary of independent claim 8, with
`
`exemplary citations to the specification and to the drawings of the ’508 patent. Because there is no
`
`requirement to list every relevant citation, the cited portions of the specification are not intended to
`
`be exhaustive or limiting.
`
`Claim
`Number
`
`Claim Elements
`
`Support in ’508 Patent
`
`(a) An automated multimedia system for data
`processing for delivering inIorman'on on request to
`at least one user, which comprises:
`
`See, e.g,, Figs. 1 and 2;
`1:20-25.
`
`13 ' 4:17—36.
`
`(b) at least one computerized station:
`
`c) means for accepting and
`
`(d) processing an user's entry
`
`(e) according to backward—chaining
`
`See, 13.9, Fig. 2; 3:34 —
`4:2.
`
`See, mg, Fig. 2 (119);
`3:58—67.
`
`See, e.g., Fig. 2 (113);
`3:35—36.
`
`See, e.g., Fig. 4 (136-
`141 ' 4:37—44.
`
`(f) and forward—chaining sequences, including:
`
`See, e.g,, Figs. 3 (130—
`
`

`

`'
`
`Claim Elements
`
`Support in ’508 Patent
`
`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`123 ; 5:3—12.
`
`; meansfor : I:
`
`[—1
`
`(h) and for combining an user‘s entry with a set of
`stored data,
`(i) means, responsive to said means for analyzing
`and for combining, for formulating a query and
`
`(j) outputting said query to said user;
`
`(k) and means for delivering informtion to said
`user.
`
`Se e._,F'_.3 4 5.
`
`See, e.g., Fig. 3, 4, 5.
`
`See, e.g., Figs. 2(10),
`4(152), and 5(154), 5:3—
`12.
`
`See, e.g,., Fig. 2 (118,
`123 ; 5:3—12.
`See, e.g., Fig. 2 (118,
`
`V.
`
`37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv) - Argument
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Argument
`
`The Board should reverse the Examiner’s rejections‘L5 and confirm claims 8-15 of the ”508
`
`patent. First, the § 131 Declarations and exhibits, which were ignored by the Examiner, establish
`
`Johnson as a § 102(a) reference and then prove through substantial conception, diligence, and
`
`reduction to practice evidence that Johnson is not a proper reference to at least claim 8. Second, even
`
`if Johnson were a proper reference, Imder a reasonable means-plus—function claim interpretation of
`
`algorithms the term “stored da ” that appears in claim 8 means, e.g., data accessed from a remote
`
`location. This definition distinguishes claim 8 fiom Johnson, which the Examiner admits lacks bi-
`
`directional communications capability since it is a stand-alone system.
`
`1.
`
`The anticipation rejection of claim 8 is improper because Johnson is not
`available as a reference.
`
`The Examiner improperly found that Johnson anticipates claim 8 as §102(b) prior art. In
`
`doing so, the Examiner ignored the face of the patent. The face of the ’508 patent claims priority to
`
`the ’525 application, which was filed on May 24, 1984. The same priority claim is made at column 1,
`
`lines 14-16 of the ’508 patent. The Examiner recognized—in the Order and Office Actions issued in
`
`3 For elements 8(g) and 801), see also Section V.B.2.b. below.
`
`4 The Examiner rejected claims 8- 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Johnson. (Final, pp. 13-
`89.) Claim 15 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Johnson in view of Principles afRuIe-Based Expert
`Systems, Advances in Computers, Marshall C. Yovits ed., Academic Press Inc, N.Y., Volume 22, pp. 163-216, 1983
`(“Advances in Computers” or “AIC”). (Final, pp. 89—93.)
`5 Patent Owner previously sought to enter new claims 18-25, which were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§
`102, 112, 305. (Final, pp. 93-122.) Patent Owner concurrently filed an Amendment under 37 CPR. § 41.33(b)(1)
`cancelling these claims, which means that Patent Owner accepts that these rejections have been rendered moot.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`this reexamination—that Johnson may not qualify as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in View of
`
`this priority claim.“3 In the Order, the Examiner even stated, “One of the references cited in the
`
`instant Request, Johnson, would be available as prior art under 102(a), rather than 102(b), if the
`
`claims were entitled to the benefit of the earliest priority date.” (Order, p. 18.) Based on these
`
`Examiner comments, Patent Owner explicitly stated in its Reply that “Johnson is not available as a
`
`reference” (Reply, p. 12) and presented a chart (Lockwood Exhibit B) that showed support under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 112 and 120 for each element of claim 8 in the '525 application. Patent Owner's arguments
`
`and evidence showed that Johnson was a reference under § 102(3), not under § 102(b), and the 131
`
`Declaration, with exhibits, removed Johnson as a proper invalidating reference.
`
`The record is clear: both Patent Owner and the Examiner fully understood that perfecting
`
`priority to the ’525 application disqualifies Johnson as a reference under § 102(b). But surprisingly,
`
`the Examiner dismissed Patent Owner’s evidence stating “[t]he propriety of such 102(b) qualification
`
`has not been explicitly addressed by Patent Owner’s arguments.” (Final, p. 13.) When asked for
`
`clarification during the Second Interview, the Examiner indicated that the chart perfecting priority to
`
`the ’525 application was dismissed because it was not presented in a section directed to priority of
`
`the claims. This dismissal, based purely on form over substance, is arbitrary and capricious and
`
`without legal authority. 7
`
`Section 706.02(b) of the M.P.E.P.
`
`lists four ways to overcome a rejection based on
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). One way is by perfecting benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to an earlier filed
`
`application. Again, Lockwood Exhibit B perfected benefit under § 120 to the filing date of the ’525
`
`application—May 24, 1984—by demonstrating support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for each element of
`
`claim 8 in the '525 application.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board consider the merits of the evidence
`
`presented with the Reply because Johnson does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (see
`
`Sections V.B.l)—making Patent Owner’s timely-filed l3] Declarations available to remove Johnson
`
`as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Once removed, the Board is asked to reverse the rejections
`
`and confirm the claims.
`
`6 Order, 1). 18', Office Action, p. 3; Final, pp. 13-14, 90.
`7 The Patent Owner filed a Petition October 31, 2013, that argued the Examiner’s failure to act on the merits of
`the declaration and evidence caused the finality of the rejection to be premature.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`a)
`
`Johnson does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Lockwood Exhibit B perfected the benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the ’525
`
`application. Lockwood Exhibit B established the following §§ 112 and 120 support for claim 8:
`
`Support in the ‘359
`Patent
`
`(a) An automated multimedia system for data
`processing for delivering information on request to
`at least one user, which comprises:
`
`See Figs. 1(2) and 2; 1:
`23—36.
`
`(b) at least one computerized station:
`
`(c) means for accepting and
`
`-
`
`(d) processing an user's entry
`
`e) according to backward—chaining
`
`(f) and forward—chaining sequences, including:
`
`_: means for anal ,_,;
`(h) and for combining an user‘s entry with a set of
`stored data,
`(i) means, responsive to said means for analyzing
`and for combining, for formulating a query and
`
`(j) outputting said query to said user;
`
`See Fig. 2; 4:22 — 5:6.
`
`See Fig. 2 (13); 4:33—
`51.
`
`See Fig. 2 (10); 4:33-
`51.
`
`See Fig. 4 (use);
`6:51—56.
`
`See Fig. 3 (30—34); 4:
`*6.3
`
`‘_.2 10,14
`See
`See Fig. 2; 75—10
`
`See Fig. 2 (14, 10);
`7:1417.
`
`See Fig. 2 (8, 20); 7:14—
`17.
`
`-
`
`(k) and means for delivering informtion to said
`user.
`
`See Fig. 2 (8, 20); 7:14—
`17.
`
`Patent Owner timely submitted this ‘359 Patent Priority Support Chart, which demonstrates
`
`support under 35 U.S.C. § 1 12 for each element of previously pending claim 8 in the ’525 application
`
`(which issued as the ’359 patent).
`
`This Chart shows that the Requestor incorrectly asserted that the claims of the ’508 patent are
`
`not entitled to the priority date of May 24, 1984, based on Requestor's incorrect assertion that the ’525
`
`application does not support forward-chaining:
`
`This is the only portion of the ’ 1 15 CIP specification that even arguably
`discloses the concept of processing an answer in combination with other
`information in order to form a new inquiry. By contrast, that concept is
`totally absentfiom the earlier-filedparent ’359patem.
`(Request, p. 18; emphasis added.)
`
`So, to summarize, in the original ’359 parent patent [issuing from the '525
`application], questions are posed to users, answers provided, and then
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`those answers are stored and sent to a central processing unit in order to
`receive a rate quote. There is no analysis of the answers done to form
`additional queries.
`(Request, p. 12; emphasis added.)
`
`The Examiner ignored the Chart in Lockwood Exhibit B, specifically FIG. 3 (stages 30—34) of
`
`the 359 patent as one example of the disputed ‘Torward—chaining sequences.” Below, Patent Owner
`
`reproduces
`
`adopted Requester’s
`
`rationale
`
`that
`
`Johnson qualifies
`
`as
`
`a reference under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Order, p. 19.) FIG. 3 of the ’359 patent (e.g., stages 30-33) (note that stage 40 is
`
`linked to FIG. 3 by off-page connector “A,” and is found in FIG. 4) along with its description in the
`
`specification of the ’359 patent (6:46-56).
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates receiving and processing user input/answers (e.g., FIG. 3, stages 30 and 31)
`
`in combination with other information (e.g., FIG. 3, stages 32 and 33) in order to form a new inquiry
`
`(e.g., FIG. 4, stage 34 or FIG. 5, stage 50). Since the ’359 patent (the ’525 application) support all
`
`elements of patented claim 8, including the only disputed element, claim 8 has an efi'ective filing
`
`date of May 24, 1984. Accordingly,
`
`the ’359 patent disqualifies Johnson as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Thecustomerisfinuskedifheorshehareeeivede
`
`previoueqnoufionfromthesyltem(30).lflhemweris
`yestbequomionisrecnlledinneriesofstepsSltoBS
`fromthecentnldmmoeeuingoenterthheenmeris
`so no. the questioning continues.
`MeaninFIGJtthecusmerisuloedflfiwleIeet
`thetypeof insurancequotntion desired (leg. automobile
`35, homeownermlifefl orheelth 38). When thetype
`of influence is selected. I series ofpertinent questions
`55 (39) for that type of insurance is asked, such as age,
`gender.muitaluetus.andsoon. The customer enter:
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`b)
`
`Johnson does not qualify as invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a).
`
`Patent Owner’s Rule 131 Declarations are sufficient to remove Johnson as a reference under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Having shown that Johnson does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b), the Examiner incorrectly ignored Patent Owner’s Rule 131 Declarations, which were timely
`
`filed. The Rule 131 Declarations prove conception, diligence, and a reduction to practice of at least
`
`claim 8. Patent Owner requests that the Board consider Patent Owner‘s Declarations and respectfully
`
`directs the Board to Reply Section V and the accompanying Rule 131 Declarations and Section
`
`V.B.l (below).
`
`2.
`
`Even if Johnson is not removed, claim 8 should be confirmed because
`
`Johnson fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least the claimed “stored
`data” as properly construed.
`
`Additionally, as discussed in Section V.B.2. below, the Board also should reverse the
`
`Examiner's decision because Johnson, even if deemed a proper reference, does not teach at least
`
`“stored data,” as properly construed, e.g., data accessed from a remote location. The Examiner’s
`
`claim construction is legally deficient because it is incomplete and inconsistent with the specification
`
`and prosecution history. Using the proper construction, Johnson’s station completely8 lacks bi—
`
`directional communication capabilities9 because it does not access data from a remote location (such
`
`as a remote financial institution or remote credit rating service).
`
`a)
`
`The Examiner applied the wrong claim construction to the term
`“stored data.”
`
`It is undisputed that the recited analyzing and combining an user is entry with a set of stored
`
`data is a computer-implemented function that is implemented by the general purpose processor of
`
`the computerized station of claim 8. (Reply, p. 15; Final, pp. 9, 27.) The Federal Circuit, the PTAB,
`
`and the MPEP require that the structure corresponding to a means-plus-function (NIPF) claim
`
`limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the
`
`general purpose computer or processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose
`
`3 During the First Interview, the Examiner implied that the timing of the remote data access inherent in claim 8
`is somehow relevant to overcoming Johnson. Since Johnson does not disclose accessing reunite data, at any time, this
`temporal requirement implied by the Examiner does not distinguish claim 8 Earn Johnson.
`9 Final, p. 142; oflice Action, p. 101-02.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,671
`Patent Owner’s Atty. Dkt. No. 3323.002REX5
`
`computer that is programed to perform the disclosed algorithm 10 To comply with these principles of
`
`claim construction, Patent Owner provided a detailed analysis of the algorithm illustrated in FIGS. 3-
`
`5 of the '508 patent, which transforms the general purpose processor of the computerized station to a
`
`special purpose computer. (Reply, pp. 19-22.)
`
`Nevertheless, the Examiner ignored this algorithm and wrongly construed the structure to be
`
`“a processor onsitefof the computerized st