`
`PATENT OWNER
`EXHIBIT 2035
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2035EXHIBIT 2035
`
`
`
`Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`11/112 ,990
`
`Examiner
`
`MCNALLY ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`MATTHEW BROPHY
`
`2191
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) MATTHEW BROPHY.
`
`(2) Lewis Bullock.
`
`Date of Interview: 14 October 2011.
`
`(3)Micheal Fabian.
`
`(4) Keith McNally.
`
`Type: (cid:9) q Telephonic
`q Video Conference
`Z Personal [copy given to: q applicant (cid:9) q applicant's representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description: (cid:9)
`.
`
`q Yes (cid:9) q No.
`
`q 101 q 112 E102 2103 q Others
`Issues Discussed
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 103-127.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Cupps, Kavesky, Micros, et al.
`
`Substance of Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification of a
`reference or a portion thereof, claim interpretation, proposed amendments, arguments of any applied references etc„.)
`
`The Applicant, Applicant's representative, examiner and SPE met to discuss possible allowable subject matter in the
`case. The Applicant gave an overview of the invention and history of the case. The Applicant explained the secondary
`factors evidence submitted to the office as evidence of non-obviousness. The Applicant described the claim
`amendment made in reponse 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 secondary 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 last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, ar the mailing date of this interview summary farm, 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 713.04 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.
`
`q Attachment
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No 20111216
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)