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

`
`MATTH EW B ROPHY
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicantfs)
`
`MCNALLY ET AL.
`
`Applicant-initiated interview Summary
`
`11i112,990
`
`Examiner
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant’s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) MATTHEW BROPHY.
`
`(2) Lewis Buttock.
`
`Date of Interview: 14 October 201 1.
`
`(3)11/iicheai Fabiano.
`
`(4) Keith McNaiiz.
`
`Type:
`
`[I video Conference
`[I Telephonic
`E Personal [copy given to: I:I applicant
`
`I:I app|icant’s representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: E] Yes
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`|:I No.
`
`[I101 E1112 E102 E103 |:]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: Cuggs, Kaveskz, Micros, et ai.
`
`Substance or interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification ofa
`reference ora portion thereof, claim interpretation. proposed amendments. arguments of any applied references etc...)
`
`iicant
`The
`case. The
`
`iicant's re resentative examiner and SPE met to discuss ossibie aiiowabie sub 'ect matter in the
`iicant ave an overview of the invention and histor of the case. The A iicant ex iained the secondar
`
`factors evidence submitted to the office as evidence of non-obviousness. The Aggiicant described the claim
`amendment made in repgnse to the November 2010 interview. in the interview, the applicant described the function of
`the menu generation szstem creating cascaded graghicai user interface screens which are adagtabie to different sized
`handheid devices. The aggiicant exgiained how the secondary factors show non-obviousness. The examiners asked
`the aggiicant 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 MPEP
`section 713.04). It 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 fron1 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 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 patentabilily 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] Attachment
`
`U_S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-413 (Flev. 8f11f2010}
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20111216