PATENT OWNER
`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2035
`
`EXHIBIT 2035
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`
`
`
` . . . , 11h 12.990 MCNALLY ET AL.
`
`
`Appircant-inrtrated in tervrew Summary
`_
`_
`Examiner
`Art UnIt
`
`MATTHEW BFIOPHY
`
`2191
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant‘s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1 ) MATTHEW BHOPH Y.
`
`(2) Lewis Buiiock.
`
`Date of Interview: 14 October 2011.
`
`(3)Micheai Fabiano.
`
`(4)Keith McNaiiy.
`
`Type:
`
`[I Video Conference
`[I Telephonic
`IE Personal [copy given to: El applicant
`
`I:I applicant's representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`[I Yes
`
`I] No.
`
`E1101 E1112 E102 E103 DOthers
`Issues Discussed
`(For each of the checked hoxt'es] above. please describe below the issue and detailed description ot'lhe discussion]
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 103—127.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Cupps, Kaveskz, Micros, etai.
`
`Substance of Interview
`{For each issue discussed. provide a delailed descriplion and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification ol‘ a
`reference or a porlion thereol‘, claim inlerpretation. proposed amendments. argumenls ol‘ any applied rel‘erences etc...,l
`
`The Appiicant, Appiicant's representative, examiner and SPE met to discuss possibie aiiowabie subiect matter in the
`case. The Appiicant gave an overview of the invention and history: of the case. The Appiicant expiained the secondary:
`factors evidence submitted to the office as evidence of non—obviousness. The Appiicant described the ciaim
`amendment made in reponse to the November 20i0 interview. in the interview, the appiicant described the function of
`the menu generation szstem creating cascaded graphicai user interface screens which are adaptabie to different sized
`handheid devices. The appiicanf expiained how the secondarz factors show non—obviousness. The examiners asked
`the appiicant about severai features of the invention .
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEF’
`section T1304). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non—extendable period ofthe longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, 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 T1304 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability 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.
`
`I:I Attachment
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL'413 (REV. 8t'I11t'l2010)
`
`Intefview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20111216
`
`