`
`Exhibit
`
`2008
`
`Exhibit
`
`2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.0. Box‘l450 _
`_
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspm.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/000,396
`
`09/23/2008
`
`6516236
`
`14983-131
`
`1593
`
`30662
`
`7590
`
`*1 1/20/2008
`
`SCHACHTLAW omcwc.
`SUITE 202
`.
`2801 MERIDIAN STREET
`BELLINGHAM, WA 98225—2412
`
`I
`
`KOSOWSKI, ALEXANDER]
`ART UNIT
`APER NUMBER
`_ P
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`1 1/20/2008
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`
`
`' .,
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`Date:
`
`-
`I l- 20 0
`
`6’
`
`William J. Zychlewicz
`
`ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
`
`One Metropolitan Square
`
`St Louis, MO 63102-2740
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95000396
`
`PATENT NO. : 6516236
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER : 3999
`
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be eXtended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`'
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mall, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTOL—2()70(Rev.07—04)
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING/DENYING
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`
`Control No.
`
`95/000,396
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`
`
`6516236
`Art Unit
`
`The request for inter partes reexamination has been considered. Identification of the claims, the
`references relied on, and the rationale supporting the determination are attached.
`
`Attachment(s):
`
`I] PTO-892
`
`[E PTO/SB/08
`
`IXIOther: Decision
`
`E] An Office-action is attached with this order.
`
`IE An Office action will follow in due course.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1. E The request for inter partes reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`
` 2. I:l The request for inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
`
` . This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denial by petition
`
`to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTH from the mailing date hereof. 37 CFR 1.927.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ONLY UNDER 37 CFR 1.183. In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26(c)
`will be made to requester.
`
`
` All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this
`
`Order.
`'
`
`
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2063 (08/06)
`
`'
`
`Paper No. 20081112
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION
`
`1)
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-10 of United States Patent
`
`Number 6,516,236 (Brown et al) is raised by the request for inter partes reexamination filed
`
`9/23/08.
`
`References Cited in the Request
`
`2)
`
`A total of 41 references have been asserted in the request as providing teachings relevant
`
`to the claims of the Brown patent. These references are listed on pages 3-7 of the request.
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested
`The 41 references cited above. are separately discussed regarding claims 1-10 ofthe
`
`' 3)
`
`Brown patent. Pages 8-421 of the request detail out proposed substantial new questions of
`
`patentability in light of the 41 references cited above.
`
`Prosecution T-Iistory
`
`4)
`
`The Brown patent was assigned‘serial number 10/021,669. During prosecution, the
`
`application was allowed with the following reasons for allowance:
`
`The allowability of the claims resides, at least in part, in that the closest prior art of
`
`record Hirai (US 5,914,876) does not disclose or suggest, alone or in combination the step of a
`
`motion control component for generating the sequence of control commands for controlling the
`
`selected motion control device based on the component functiOns of the application program, the
`
`component code associated with the component functions, and the driver code associated with
`
`the selected software driver, in combination with the other elements and features of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`None of the 41 references in the currently filed request were previously discussed by the
`
`examiner or applied to claims 1-10 in the prosecution history of the Brown patent.
`
`Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`5)
`
`Eleven possible combinations of the 41 references cited in the request have been
`
`proposed as reading on claims 1-10 of the Brown patent. Of these eleven possible combinations,-
`
`examiner notes that the six combinations below raise a substantial new question of patentability.
`
`For purposes of determination, independent claim 1 is a representative claim. The
`
`italicized sections of claim 1 below were cited by the examiner in the reasons for allowance
`
`discussed above and are utilized to show how specific teachings of the proposed references
`
`create a substantial new question of patentability.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`i
`
`_
`
`A system for generating a sequence of control commands for controlling a selected
`
`motion control device selected from a group of supported motion control devices, comprising:
`
`a set of motion control operations, where each motion control operation is either a
`
`primitive operation the implementation of which is required to operate motion control devices
`
`and cannot be simulated using other motion control operations or a non-primitive operation that
`
`does not meet the definition of a primitive operation;
`
`a core set of core driver functions, where each core driver function is associated with one
`
`of the primitive operations; an extended set of extended driver functions, where each extended
`
`driver function is associated with one of the non-primitive operations;
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 4
`
`a set of component fimctions; component code associated with each of the component
`
`functions, where the component code associates at least some of the Component functionswith at
`
`least some of the driver functions;
`
`a set of software drivers, where each software driver is associated with one motion control device
`
`in the group of supported motion control devices, each software driver comprises driver code for
`
`implementing the motion control operations associated with at least some of the driver functions,
`
`and one of the software drivers in the set of software drivers is a selected software driver, where
`
`the selected software driver is the software driver associated with the selected motion control
`
`device;
`
`, an application program comprising a series of component functions, where the
`
`application program defines the steps for operating motion control devices in a desired manner;
`
`and a motion control componentfor generating the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor
`
`controlling the'selected motion control device based on the componentfunctions ofthe
`
`application program, the component code associated with the componentfunctions, and the
`
`driver code associated with the selected software driver.
`
`m
`
`6)
`
`The SOSAS references Volumes I-VI describe the Specification for an Open System
`
`Architecture Standard which governs the design and construction of a family of workstation /
`
`machine controllers. The request shows that SOSAS discloses a motion control componentfor
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device
`
`' based on the componentfunctions ofthe application program (Volume 5 p. 4—5), the component
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 5
`
`code associated with the componentfunctions (Volume 1, p. A-3 and Volume 5 p. 56), and the
`
`driver code associated with the selected software driver (Volume 2 p. 181 and Volume 5 p. C-3).
`
`The SOSAS reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to
`
`claims 1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of SOSAS raises a SNQ as to claims 1-10 of the Brown
`
`patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would
`
`consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why SOSAS raises a substantial new question of patentability, see
`
`also pages 77-116 ofthe request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the request for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in SOSAS that were not present in the prosecution of
`
`the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, SOSAS raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10, which question
`
`has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was there a final holding
`
`of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Abilifl Systems
`
`7)
`
`The Ability Systems references describe the HPGL and HP-GL/2 controllers, as well as
`
`Indexer LPT software. The request shows that Ability Systems discloses a motion control
`componentfor generating the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion
`
`control device based on the componentfunctions ofthe application program (DEFS 00043017),
`
`the component code associated with the componentfunctions (DEFS 00031041), and the driver
`
`'code associated with the selected software driver (DEFS 00043023-25).¥ In addition, the Ability
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Systems references all relate .to similar art and it would be obvious to combine them since they
`
`are interoperable together.
`
`The Ability Systems references were not previously discussed by the examiner nor
`
`applied to claims 1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Ability Systems references raises a SNQ as to
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a
`
`reasonable examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these
`
`claims are patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why Ability Systems raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability, see also pages 151-164 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference
`
`from the request for their explanation of the teachings provided in Ability Systems that were not
`
`present in the prosecution of the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Ability Systems references raise a substantial new question of claims 1-~ ~
`
`10, which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent. '
`
`Sim
`
`8)
`
`The Sorensen reference describes a ROBLINE system that allows a user to select a
`
`motion control device to control through a task planner and/or an application:
`
`The request shows that Sorensen discloses a motion control componentfor generating the
`
`sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device based on the
`
`componentfunctions ofthe application program (Pages 92-93), the component code associated
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`with the componentfunctions (Pages 186—187), and the driver code associated with the selected
`
`software driver (Page 20).
`
`i
`
`The Sorensen reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to
`
`claims 1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Sorensen reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1-
`
`10 of the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would. consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why Sorensen raises a substantial new question of patentability,
`see also pages 241-246 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the
`
`request for their explanation of the teachings provided in Sorensen that were not present in the
`
`prosecution of the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Sorensen reference raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10,
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`9)
`
`The King reference describes a graphics engine for use. with the Windows Operating
`
`_K_i_r_1_g
`
`System.
`
`The request shows that King discloses a motion control componentfor generating the
`
`sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the seleé‘ted motion control device based‘on the
`
`componentfunctions ofthe application program (DEF‘S 00025172), the component code
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`associated with the componentfunctions (DEFS 00025168), and the driver code associated with
`
`the selected software driver (DEFS 00025167 and DEFS 00024975).
`
`The King reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims
`
`1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the King reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1-10 of
`
`the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why King raises a substantial new question of patentability, see
`
`also pages 275-282 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the request for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in King that were not present in the prosecution of the
`
`application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the King reference raises a substantial new question of claims 1—10, which
`
`question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was there a
`
`final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`
`7 Petzold
`
`10)
`
`The Petzold reference describes the graphics application module used to control graphics
`
`or printing in the Windows Operating System.
`
`The request shows that Petzold discloses a motion control componentfor generating the
`
`sequence ofcontrol commands for controlling the selected motion control device based on the
`
`componentfunctions ofthe application program (DEFS 00042201), the component code
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`associated with the componentfunctions (DEFS 00042154), and the driver code associated with
`
`the selected software driver (DEFS 00042375).
`
`The Petzold reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to
`
`claims 1-10 in the prior‘examination of the patent as discussed above:
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Petzold reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1-10
`
`~ ofthe Brown patent as pointed out above.' There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentablei
`
`For additional reasons why Petzold raises a substantial new question of patentability, see
`
`also pages 294-309 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the request for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in' Petzold that were not present in the prosecution of
`
`the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Petzold reference raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10,
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Windows NT Operating System (OS!
`
`11)
`
`The Windows NT references describe device driver purposes, design and debugging for a
`
`, variety of motion control devices such as printers and plotters.
`
`The request shows that Windows NT discloses a motion control componentfor
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device
`
`based on the componentfunctions ofthe application program (RGBINSPOOOOOOZI , pages 1-13),
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`_
`
`' Page 10
`‘
`
`the component code associated with the componentfunctions (RGBIN81300000021 part I, p. 1-
`2), and the driver code associated with the selectedsoftware driver (l{GBINSP00000021 part
`III, p. 2-2).
`-
`l
`I
`
`In addition, the Windows NT references all relate to similar art and it would be obvious
`
`to combine them since they are interoperable together.
`The Windows NT references were not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied
`
`to claims 1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Windows NT references raises a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent as pointed out above; There is a substantial likelihood that a I
`
`reasonable examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these
`
`claims are patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why Windows NT raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability, see also pages 320-356 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference
`
`from the request for their explanation of the teachings provided in Windows NT that were not
`
`present in the prosecution of the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Windows NT references raise a substantial new question of claims 1-10,
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding 'of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Discussion of References that Do Not Raise a SNQ
`
`12)
`
`Eleven possible combinations of the 41 references cited in the request have been
`
`proposed as reading on claims 1-10 of the Brown patent. Of these eleven possible combinations,
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`'
`'
`
`.
`
`Page 11
`
`examiner notes that the five combinations below do not raise a substantial new question of
`
`' patentability.
`
`MOSAIC
`
`13)
`The MOSAIC references describe the development of self-sustaining, open-system
`machine tools for manufacturing, including an open aspect that provides a communications
`
`ability, modular configuration, and a universal architecture.
`
`With regard to claims 1-10, the requester states that the combination of 12 MOSAIC
`references arrives at the claimed limitations. Specifically for mapping claim 1, the requester has
`applied a combination of at least eight ofthe 12 MOSAIC references.~ While examiner agrees
`
`that many of the Claimed features are at least partially disclosed throughout the references, the
`
`references are from disparate sources. It is not clear how the piecemeal analysis of the numerous
`
`MOSAIC references could be considered important to patentability.
`
`Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the MOSAIC references do not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claimsl-IO of the Brown patent.
`
`SERCOS
`
`I
`
`14)
`
`The SERCOS references describe digital NC drives that perform drive control,
`
`monitoring, and diagnosis of a device such as a rotor.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`‘
`
`'
`
`Page 12
`
`With regard to claims 1-10, the requester states that the combination of 5 SERCOS
`
`references arrives at the claimed limitations. Specifically for mapping claim 1, the requester has
`
`applied a combination of all 5 of the SERCOS references.
`
`The request shows that SERCQS discloses a motion control componentfor generating
`the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device based on
`
`the componentfunctions ofthe application program (Digital Interface, DEFSOOO41200), the
`
`component code associated with the componentfunctions (Open Drive DEFS 00051136-37).
`
`However, the request does not clearly Show, for instance, the driver code associated with the
`
`selected software driver.
`
`In addition, there is no specific reason given to combine these multiple references. The
`
`references are from disparate sources and vary in date by up to five years.
`It is not clear how an
`examiner would avoid using piecemeal analysis-to read the SERCOS references upon claims 1-
`
`10 of the Brown patent.
`
`/ Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the SERCOS references do not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Bruel & K'aer
`
`'
`
`15)
`
`The Bruel and Kjaer (B&K) references describe a modular, computer—based system that
`
`includes a plurality of components in communication over a network and controlled by an
`
`integrated operating system.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`With regard to claims 1-10, the requester states that the combination of 8 B&K references
`
`arrives at the claimed limitations. Specifically for mapping claim 1, the requester has applied a
`
`combination of at least 4 of the B&K references.
`
`The request shows that B&K discloses component code associated with the component
`
`functions (ASTBS page 21), and driver code associated with the selected software driver
`
`(ASTBS page 10).
`
`However, the request does not clearly show, for instance, a. motion control componentfor
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrol commands for controlling the selected motion control device
`
`based on the componentfunctions ofthe application program.
`
`In addition, there is no specific reason given to combine the multiple references to
`
`achieve the limitations of claims 1-10. The references are from disparate sources only generally
`
`relate. It is not clear how an examiner would avoid using piecemeal analysis to read the B & K
`
`references upon claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the B & K references do not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`QM
`
`16)
`
`The Comwell reference describes factory machines that are monitored and / or controlled
`
`over a network by a management computer including a set of drivers that are used to control the
`
`factory machines by issuing commands to the factory machines through the network.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`"
`
`Page 14
`
`The request shows that Comwell discloses a motion control componentfor generating
`
`the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device based on
`
`the componentfunctions ofthe application program (col. 5 line 66 through col. 6 line 4).
`
`Although Comwell does generally teach converting NC control commands to be'
`
`translated to specific formats for motion control tools, the request does not clearly show, for
`
`instance, component code associated with the componentfunctions and driver code associated
`
`with the selected software driver.
`
`Thus, there is. not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the Comwell reference does not raiseia SNQ as to
`
`' claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Norton
`
`16)
`
`. The Norton reference describes a device driver as a program module that is integrated
`
`within an operating system to provide a standard interface between an application program and V
`
`an external device.
`
`The request shows that Norton discloses component code associated with the component
`
`functions (DEFS 00025436), and driver code associated with the selected software driver (DEFS
`
`00025406).
`
`|
`
`However, the request does not clearly show, for instance, a motion control componentfor
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrol commands for controlling the selected motion control device
`
`based on the componentfunctions ofthe application program.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`
`,
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: .3992
`
`The Norton reference describes general application programs, but does not specifically
`teach the details of the claimed motion control program.
`
`Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the Norton reference does not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`
`.
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Conclusion
`
`17)
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to “an applicant”
`
`and not to the patent owner in a reexaminatiOn proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 314(c)
`
`requires that inter partes reexamination proceedings .“will be conducted with special dispatch”
`
`(37 CFR 1.937). Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination proceedings are
`
`provided for in 37 CFR 1.956. Extensions of time are not available for third party requester
`
`comments, because a comment period of 30 days from service of patent owner’s response is set
`
`by statute. 35 U.S.C. 314(b)(3).
`
`The Patent Owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.985(a) to
`
`apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving the
`
`US Patent 6,516,236 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The Third Party
`
`Requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or
`
`‘ proceeding through the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP § 2686 and
`2686.04.
`I
`
`18)
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`as follows:
`
`By US. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 95/000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`’
`
`Page 17
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`By EFS-Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`https://sportal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepfhtml
`
`EFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are “soft scanned” (i.e.,
`electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
`offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the “soft scanning’
`process is complete.
`'
`
`3
`
`19)
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`' Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be
`
`I directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.
`
`/Alexander J Kosowski/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`,
`
`/
`
`fl;
`b S K .
`
`