throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`O
`
`C‘
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMIMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: CONEMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
`Washington, DC, 20231
`www,uspw.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N01
`
`08/480,392
`
`06/07/1995
`
`JOHN C. HARVEY
`
`5634,} IO
`
`9205
`
`21967
`
`7590
`
`09/03/2002
`
`HUNTONWILLIAMS “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
`
`1900 K STREET, N.W.
`MEHTA, BHAVESH M
`SUITE 1200
`WASHINGTON, DC 200001109
`
`261 1
`
`'
`
`DATE MAILED: 09/03/2002
`
`\
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 07-01)
`
`ZYNGA EX. 1004
`
`W’
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`08/480,392
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`Harvey et al.
`
`—-| IIIIIllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`
`— The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address —
`
`Period for Reply
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE
`THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION
`-Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 (a) In no event however may a reply be timelyIfiled after SIX (6) MONTHS from the
`mailing date of this communication
`. If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days. a reply within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely.
`- If NO period for reply is specified above. the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 USC. § 133).
`- Any reply received by the Office later than three months alter the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment, See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`Status
`
`MONTH(S) FROM
`
`3
`
`1)I Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`
`Jun 18 2002
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I This action is non-final.
`
`3) D Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quay/935 CD. 11; 453 0.6. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)I Claim(s) 3-15 17 18 20-22 30-40 42 45 46 51-64 68 72-74 82-89 and 9:
`
`is/are pending in the applica
`
`4a) Of the above, claim(s)
`
`5)EI Claim(s)
`
`6). Claim(s) 3-15 17 18 20—22 30-40 42 45 46 51-64 68 72-74 82-89 and 93
`
`is/are withdrawn from considers
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirem
`
`is/are dB accepted or b)CI objected to by the Examiner.
`
`7) E] _C|aim(s)
`
`8) El Claims
`
`Application Papers
`
`9):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10) :l The drawing(s) filed on
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`11) :I The proposed drawing correction filed on
`
`is: aD approved b)Ddisapproved by the Examiner.
`
`If approved, corrected drawings are required in reply to this Office action.
`
`12)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120
`
`13) :1 Acknowledgement is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`
`
`
`All b) CI Some" c)
`
`I:None of:
`
`a)
`
`1. CI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2. CI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3. CI Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`14) CI Acknowledgement is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
`
`a)I:I The translation of the foreign language provisional application has been received.
`
`15) El Acknowledgement is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120 and/or 121.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) mmfice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) EINotice of Draflsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`
`4) Dimerview Summary (PTO-413) Paper No(s).
`- » 2 5) BNét'IUe of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
`
`.
`
`[:Ilnfonnation Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) Paper No(s).
`3)
`Ur S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`6) DOther:
`
`PTO-326 (Rev. 04-01)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No. 33
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`SECTION I:
`
`During the present prosection, many of the same issues have been raised
`in different ones of the many copending applications.
`In at least some
`cases, these issues appear to have been handled and addressed
`inconsistently between applications. Thus, the following “list” of positions
`taken by the examiner/Office in regard to such overlapping issues has been
`created, and will be maintained by the Office, in an attempt to ensure
`consistency in the way that these issues are handled between applications
`
`in the future.
`
`THE EXAMPLES:
`
`In lines 2—8 on page 142 of the amendment filed on 1/28/2002 in
`1)
`application SN 08/470,571, applicant suggests that the examiner has
`objected to the fact that applicant provided citations showing dual support
`for the claims with respect to both the 1981 and 1987 disclosures. No such
`objection has ever been raised by the examiner. To the contrary, the
`examiner found applicant’s citations of dual support to be one of the most
`helpful aids that applicant has provided to date (i.e. when presented in the
`form of claim charts).
`Having said this, the fact remains that examiner/Office was
`unquestionably misled by the many statements made by applicant
`concerning the “consequences” of Section 120 “priority”. The reason that
`these statements misled the examiner/Office seems to be self evident from
`
`the statements themselves. For example, in the last 7 lines on page 24 of
`the Appeal Brief filed in SN 08/113,329 on 9/17/1996, applicant states:
`
`“The case law makes clear that the only inquiry concerning
`claims filed in a subsequent continuation application pursuant
`to Section 120 is whether they are adequately supported in
`under Section 1 12, first paragraph, in the initial application.
`the support exists, the inquiry is at an end.”
`
`If
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 3
`
`ArtUnit: 2614
`
`And statements made in the remarks section of many amendments in
`which applicant states:
`
`“The present application claims priority under 35 USC § 120 of
`the following applications..... Consequently, Applicants will
`demonstrate disclosure only with respect to the ‘81 case,...”
`[e.g. see lines 9-21 on page 000507 of the Appendix in the document mailed on 9/10/01 in SN
`08/474,139]
`
`These statements misled the examiner/Office into believing that, as a
`consequence of Section 120, applicant was permitted to use the disclosure
`of his 1981 parent application alone, e.g. in place of the instant 1987
`disclosure, to fulfill section 112 requirements when addressing/replying to
`Section 112 rejections. However, the examiner/Office now understands
`that, because applicant’s past 1981 parent disclosure was not incorporated
`into the instant disclosure, the 1981 specification cannot be relied upon by
`applicant for showings of section 112 support when addressing/responding
`to rejections made under Section 112;
`i.e. all section 112 Support must
`come from the instant “1987" disclosure alone.
`
`The “objections” made by the examiner in 08/470,571 were raised
`because the examiner perceived a continuation, on the part of the
`applicant, of the same arguments that misled the examiner/Office in the
`first place. By raising these “objections”,
`the examiner hoped to elicit a
`response from applicant acknowledging the fact that the instant “1987"
`disclosure was the only disclosure which could be used to fulfill the
`requirements of section 112 with respect to the limitations of the currently
`pending amended claims (the significance of the 1981 disclosure is
`relegated only to the secondary issue of Section 120 priority). The
`examiner wanted to be sure that the examiner and applicant were now on
`the same page concerning this issue. And, on at least one occasion, such
`an acknowledgment appears to have been provided by applicant [see the
`last 5 lines on page 141 of the amendment filed on 1/28/2002 in SN
`08/470,571].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/4803 92
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`2) Applicant does not believe that “common subject matter” is required
`for “priority” under Section 120.
`Instead, according to applicant, the only
`thing that applicant needs to do in order to obtain the earlier 1981 filing
`date for his pending amended claims is to show that each of his pending
`amended claims can be given different 1987 and 1981 claim interpretations
`which allows each claim to be supported, in parallel, by “different subject
`matter” from the 1981 and 1987 specifications.
`
`“[Section] 120 does not require an applicant to
`demonstrate that the disclosures relied upon under §120
`have anything in common besides their ability to
`separately comply with §112-1 with respect to the claims
`for which priority is sought. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
`focus on comparing the support from the two applications
`for similarity or common subiect matter is improper and
`irrelevant because all applicants are required to do is
`satisfy §120 is show that each'disclosure meets the
`requirements of §112-1 for a given claim.” (emphasis
`added)
`[Page 141 of applicant's response filed on 1/28/2002 in application S.N. 08/470,571]
`
`“Accordingly, the law requires a two part test in which the
`applicant separately demonstrates § 1 12 support for each
`application.
`In the FDA, the examiner distorts this
`straightforward test by imposing a third element of the
`test whereby the § 112 support from each application
`consists of ‘common subject matter.
`[see the last 10 lines on page 137 of the response filed on 1/28/2002 in SN 08/470,571].
`
`Applicant’s position seems to be wrong.
`
`“However, as mentioned earlier, a continuing application
`is entitled to rely on the earlier filing date of an earlier
`application only with respect to subiect
`matter common to both applications” (emphasis added)
`[In Transco Products, Inc, v. Performance Contracting, Inc, 32 USPQZd 1077 [”18]]
`
`‘
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`“Any claim in a continuation-in-part application that is .
`directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed
`under 35 U.S. C. 112 in the parent application is entitled to
`the filing date of the parent application. ”
`[In Transco Products, Inc, v. Performance Contracting, Inc, 32 USPQZd 1077 [“18]]
`
`“Assuming the common inventorship, copendency, and
`cross-reference required by section 120, that section
`further requires only that the invention be disclosed in the
`parent application in such manner as to comply with the
`first paragraph of section 112 and be the same invention as
`that disclosed in the later application.” (emphasis added)
`[Kirschnen 305 F.2d 897 (C.C.PA1962)]
`
`In the last 5 lines on page 141 of the response filed on 1/28/2002 in
`3)
`08/470,571, applicant acknowledged that the 1981 application was not
`incorporated into the 1987 application. As a consequence, applicant also
`appears to understands that all Section 112 support must come solely from
`the “instant” 1987 disclosure if the requirements of section 112 are to be
`satisfied.
`lf applicant knows such to be true, then it is not understood how
`applicant can still adopt the following position:
`
`“the [examiner’s] assumption that ‘all limitations of the
`currently pending claims are necessarily directed to that which
`is described in the present 1987 disclosure’ is mistaken and
`wholly unsupported." 1
`[lines 8-10 on page 144 of the amendment filed in 08/470,571 on 1/28/2002].
`
`Namely, if all section 112-1 support for all of the claims’ limitations must
`
`1 Contrary to applicant’s position, the examiner maintains that a pending claim must necessarily be directed to that which
`is described in the instant specification. This is not to say that the resulting scope ofthe pending claim is limited only to that which it
`must necessarily be directed.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`necessarily come from the instant “1987" disclosure alone (e.g. in light that
`the disclosure of the 1981 parent was not formally incorporated into the
`instant 1987 disclosure), then how can a limitation of a claim be directed to
`(Le. and obtain required section 112-1 support from) anything but that
`which is described within the said instant 1987 disclosure? ls applicant
`suggesting that the pending amended claims are not necessarily directed
`
`to, do not necessarily derive section 112-1 support from, and are not
`necessarily claiming, subject matter that is found in the instant 1987
`disclosure?
`
`4) Applicant has alleged that “Teletext decoders” did not “locally generate”
`the images that they outputted/displayed. According to applicant, Teletext
`decoders only transferred, to their outputs, displayable image data that was
`received at their inputs. The examiner rejects such a notion. The following
`is noted:
`_
`,
`_
`a) That, as was exemplified via the discussion provided on page 5 of
`the appendix that was attached to a 1981 “PETITION FOR
`RULEMAKING” submitted to the FCC 2, it was notoriously well
`known in the art that transmitted Teletext data typically comprised a
`“series of instructions” which instructed the Teletext decoders on how
`
`to “generate” the desired images which were to be
`outputted/displayed;
`
`b) That conventional Teletext decoders typically comprised
`“character generators”; i.e. such “character generators” would not
`have been required had the received Teletext data actually
`comprised displayable image data as alleged by applicant; and
`
`c) That transmitted Teletext data typically comprised of ASCII-type
`codes; i.e. wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood the fact that these ASCII-type codes are not themselves
`displayable. Specifically, these ASCII-type codes only identified the
`
`2 SEE: APPENDIX E and APPENDIX F ofthe latest Office action in SN 470,571.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`way in which locally stored pixel patterns which were locally
`retrieved and locally assembled into image frames, e.g. via the
`“character generators”, in order to locally generate the images that
`were outputted/displayed.
`
`Clearly, Teletext decoders operated to “locally generate” the images that
`they outputted and displayed!
`3
`
`A
`
`5) Applicant’s 1987 inventions used a “SPAM” transmission packet
`structure to transmit ancillary information through the TV broadcast
`networks. By using the “SPAM” packet structure, a transmission scheme
`was established in which a piece of coherent “information”, e.g. such as a
`complete “processor instruction”, could be broken down into a plurality of
`“partial information” segments and communicated through the TV network
`within/as respective “discrete (packet) signals”. On the receiver side of the
`1987 inventions, the partial information from the plurality of discrete signals
`could be recovered and re—organized back into the original piece of
`coherent “information (e.g. re—organized back into the single complete
`processor instruction).
`‘
`Applicant has alleged the above described “partial information”
`transmission scheme is a key feature which distinguishes applicant’s
`alleged 1987 inventions over Teletext “prior art”. Applicant’s allegation is
`founded on a huge misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the Teletext
`“prior art”.
`In fact, via such arguments,
`it appears that applicant is
`effectively trying to re—invent the foundation on which the Teletext “prior art”
`
`3 Character data was “always” transmitted in an encoded non-displayable format by “typical” Teletext transmission
`systems; e. g. the only exception to this “typical” configuration that the examiner is aware of is “typical” Chinese/Japanese ideograph
`Teletext systems being that there were simply too many Chinese/Japanese characters to encode efficiently. Graphics data, on the
`other hand, was “typically” encoded such that designated bits of each transmitted graphic code could be mapped by the decoder to
`regions of the display screen so as to generate the graphics image frame that was to be displayed. Yet, even here, a local graphics
`generator was still required to convert the graphics codes into displayable pixel data. Such a local graphics generator was
`conventionally implemented either with dedicated logic circuitry or with a “graphics generator” of the “character generator” variety
`[SEE: the discussion under the headings “Producing the display” and “Graphics” on page 398 of the article “CEEFAX/ORACLE:
`reception techniques (part I)” by Money in the 7/1975 issue of“TELEVISION”; and lines 13-21 in column 9 of US Patent
`
`#3,982,065].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`was actually built [e.g. see the arguments which begin at the top of page
`354 and extend to the bottom of page 356 in the response filed on 1/28/02
`in SN O8/470,571].
`Specifically, standardized Teletext was based on the recognition that
`vacant lines occurring during the VBI of TV signal transmissions could be
`used to transmit/communicate embedded frames/”pages” of
`character/graphics information along with the TV programming. However,
`it was instantly recognized that each video line did not have sufficient
`bandwidth to carry an entire frame/page of the character/graphics data.
`Therefor, the prior art Teletext systems established Teletext packet
`structures by which “partial image/information” segments (e.g. such as
`single “rows” of character and control information) could be communicated
`via respective discrete packetized signals which were embedded within
`respective discrete television line intervals. On the receiver side of the
`Teletext “prior art”,
`the partial information segments from the plurality of
`discrete packetized signals were recovered and re-organized back into the
`original frame/pages of character/graphics information in order to “locally .
`generate” a Teletext image for display. But the clear correlation that exists
`between applicant’s “SPAM” transmission scheme and prior art Teletext
`transmission schemes does not end here!
`
`In addition to the transmission of character/graphic frames/pages, those
`of ordinary skill in the art quickly recognized that the prior art Teletext
`transmission schemes could be “extended” so as to carry other kinds of
`information; eg. “Telesoftware”(i.e. computer programming), remote
`control signaling, etc,...
`This additional information was carried using the same packetized Teletext
`structure previously established for the character/graphic image data. For
`example, Telesoftware was also broken down into “partial information”
`segments to be carried as “rows” of character-like data within respective
`Teletext packets of one or more Teletext pages (e.g. depending on the size
`of the Telesoftware program that was being communicated). On the
`receiver side, the “partial information” segments of the additional
`information were then recovered from the transmitted discrete packet
`signals and were re-organized back into its original form (eg. the complete
`“Telesoftware” program was reconstructed from the discrete partial
`programming segments).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`it is still the examineI’s position that applicant’s 1987
`Given the above,
`packetized “SPAM” structure represents little more than applicant’s own
`version of a conventional “extended” Teletext system [SEE part “A” under
`“Section XI” in the Office action mailed 8/27/01 in SN 08/470,571]. And
`again, for the reasons addressed above, the examiner continues to refute
`applicant’s position that claim recitations directed to “discrete signals” and
`“partial information” contribute anything to avoiding applied Teletext “prior
`art”; i.e. applicant’s allegations to the contrary represent nothing but “straw
`men."
`
`6) Applicant points out that term “computer software/programming" has
`been defined as: “a series of instructions which controls the operation of a
`computer’. Stretching this definition, applicant erroneously suggests that
`
`the term “computer software” encompasses: “any series of instructions
`which controls the operation of a computer”. And finally, using this
`improperly stretched definition, applicant argues that each series of
`transmitted cuing-typ4e codes which were described in his 1981 parent
`application implicit/y4 taught the transmission and/or downloading of
`“computer software’ in view that each of these series of codes represented
`“instructions which controlled the operation of a computer”. Applicant’s
`argument is lame. For if one were to accept applicant’s argument,
`then in
`applicant’s new world:
`‘
`a) a computer mouse and computer keyboard suddenly become
`generators of “computer software” because they too generate series
`of instructions which are used to control the operation of a computer;
`
`b) Teletext data itself, when received by a CPU implemented
`decoder, suddenly becomes “computer software” because it too
`
`4 Applicant is reminded that what might be “implied” by the 1981 disclosure is irrelevant to section 112-] support issues.
`Section 1 12 support for a claimed feature is only provided if the claimed feature was actually disclosed;
`i.e. the feature must at least
`be “inherent” in the disclosure (not simply “implicit”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`represents series of instructions which are used to instruct a
`computer as to how to generate an image for display;
`
`c) etc, . ..
`
`Clearly, applicant’s argument twists the definition of “computer software” in
`a way that is repugnant to its conventional use/meaning in order to obtain a
`1981 effective filing date for something that he did not have in his
`possession, and/or did not disclose5 until 1987; e.g. namely, the
`downloading of computer software.
`'
`[notez parts “15)” and “16)” of this section too]
`
`7) While applicant has alleged that his “computer software/programming”
`recitations should be stretched so as to retroactively find support from
`things which were not “computer software/programming” 6(i;e. a series of
`cuing—type codes/signals from his 1981 disclosure), applicant also takes
`the opposite approach by alleging that circuit structures which operated to
`process signals (i.e. specifically Teletext decoders) are not encompassed
`by the “signal processor” recitations of his pending amended claims.
`7
`The examiner disagrees. The examiner points out that not only are
`Teletext decoders “signal processors” in any conventional sense of such
`terminology, but that Teletext decoders are in fact “signal processors”
`specifically within the context of applicant’s own alleged invention. More to
`the point, the Teletext decoders of the applied prior art are like “SPAM”
`decoders of applicant’s alleged inventions in that both decoders operated
`to extract and process packets of encoded information distributed to them,
`at least “preferably”, via the VBI of broadcasted and/or cable casted TV
`
`In the supplemental response tiled 5/06/2002 in 08/470,571, applicant now submits a different version of essentially the
`5
`same argument [see part “P)” in “SECTION I” of the latest Office action mailed in 08/470,571].
`
`6 This erroneous reading has been used in order to erroneous allege a 1981 “priority” date for current claim recitations
`which are directed to the 1987 “computer software/programing” features of the instant 1987 C1? specification.
`
`7 This erroneous reading has been used to try to distinguish which is now claimed over applied “prior art” of record.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`programming; i.e. wherein the packets of encoded information comprised
`Teletext data packets in the case of prior art Teletext decoders and
`comprised SPAM data packets in the case of the SPAM decoders of
`applicants alleged invention. 8 Being such, applicant’s allegation that
`conventional Teletext decoders should somehow be excluded by the
`“signal processor” recitations of his pending claims seems to fall under the!
`heading of: “NONSENSE.”
`9
`
`8) The examiner maintains that applicant’s own “SPAM” transmission
`system, at least as described in the context of television distribution,
`constitutes little more than applicant’s own version of an “extended Teletext
`system" 10. However. when Teletext “prior art” has been applied against
`applicant’s claims, applicant has become hostile to the suggestion that
`there is any correlation between his “SPAM” transmission system and
`
`In fact, for reasons which will be addressed in more detail below, the examiner maintains that the “SPAM” data packets
`8
`of applicant’s alleged invention represent, for all intents and purposes, little more than applicant’s own version of a Teletext system in
`which the function of its Teletext data packets have been “extended” so as to carry more than just the normal displayable
`character/graphics code (e.g. “extended” to carry control signals, Telesoftware, etc,...).
`
`9 NOTE:
`
`1) that typical Teletext decoders sequentially performed steps of signal slicing/separation, serial-to-parallel
`conversion, signal storage, ASCII code to pixel data translation, etc... all which were recognized as having
`comprised steps of “signal processing” [the last 16 lines on page 5 of the appendix that is attached to the
`“PETITION FOR RULEMAKING” which was filed with the FCC on 3/26/1981 by the “United Kingdom
`Teletext Industry Group” which explicitly indicates Teletext decoders as having performed “signal processing”]',
`and
`
`2) that such processing was even true in the unusual “ideograph” decoders of applicant’s argument [i.e. see the
`block labeled “Teletext signal processor” in figure 10 of the NHK article “A Teletext System for Ideographs” by
`Numaguchi et al. ].
`
`10 The temt “extended Teletext” is being used here to refer to Teletext systems which have been “extended” so as to carry
`other types of information beyond the nonnal/typical coded Teletext character/graphic information. One alleged novel feature of
`applicant’s SPAM packets was its ability to carry and distribute computer software. However, contrary to applicant’s allegation,
`packets of “extended Teletext” systems had long been used to carry and distribute computer software too. In fact, the term
`“Telesoftware” had been specifically coined so as to refer to the “software” that was carried by “extended Teletext systems. The point
`being, that SPAM and Teletext data packets are equivalent right down to there recognized ability to carry other fomts of information
`including “Telesoftware”.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`11 Yet, on the other hand,
`conventional Teletext transmission systems.
`applicant appears to openly believe that the scope of many of his pending
`amended claims encompasses the “WEATHER STAR” system/receiver
`technology which, to the extent understood by the examiner, is in fact a
`Teletext based technology. 12
`If applicant’s claimed/disclosed “SPAM”
`systems/receivers encompass Teletext based systems/receivers such as
`the “WEATHER STAR” system/receiver technology, then how in the world
`can applicant possibly suggest that “SPAM” and Teletext are not
`correlated/analogous technologies/arts with respect to the‘ applied prior
`art? Clearly there is a conflict between the two positions.
`
`9) Applicant and applicant’s originally filed 1987 disclosure both seem to
`have alleged that “digital television signals/programming”, of the type that
`is recited in many of applicant’s pending amended claims, was notoriously
`well known in the art at the time of his alleged, invention. The examiner has
`challenged applicant’s apparent allegations and has requested that
`applicant submit “prior art” to show such to be true.
`In response to the
`examiner’s requests, applicant has submitted US. Patent #3,906,480 to
`Schwartz et al. as having evidenced the conventional “digital television
`signal” technology on which his disclosure and amended claims were/are
`allegedly based [note the last 11 lines on page 97 and lines 3-6 on page 98
`of the amendment filed on 6/7/2000 in SN 08/470,571]. The examiner
`continues to be mystified by this submission. The examiner points out that
`the cited Schwartz et al. patent describes a computer display system in
`which a computer was used to generate, albeit digitally, frames of vector
`encoded graphic/character information which were then transferred, via a
`data bus, to “digital TV monitors” for display thereon. As far as the
`examiner can tell, the Schwartz et al. disclosure has absolutely nothing to
`do with the transmission of “digitized TV signals/programming” in any
`conventional sense of such terminology. Simply trying to figure out how the
`Schwartz et al. patent might be related to anything that was originally
`
`H Yet a large portion, if not the majority, of the “prior art” cited by applicant pertains to Teletext.
`
`12 SEE: the article “Landmark forms cable weather news network” which is already of record.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:- 08/480,392
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`disclosed by applicant in his 1987 disclosure, much less trying to figure out
`how it could have been used to enable that which was originally disclosed
`by applicant in his 1987 disclosure, represents an insurmountable
`invitation to experimentation unto itself.
`If Schwartz et al. has been cited by
`applicant out of carelessness, then its submission to the Office for required
`review and consideration represents nothing less than an unnecessary
`drain on already limited PTO resources.
`If, on the other hand, Schwartz et
`a_|. was cited out of necessity (eg. if it actually represents the best showing
`of his “digital television” recitation that applicant is/was aware of),
`then its
`very presence in the record only goes to support the examiner’s position
`that which is now claimed by applicant, i.e. via the subsequently
`introduced “digital television” recitations, is not supported and/or enabled
`by applicant’s originally filed 1987 disclosure.
`
`10) Applicant has made many attempts to have the Zaboklicki reference-
`[DE 2,914,981] removed from consideration.
`In many responses [eg the
`communication filed 7/13/2000 in 08/470,571], applicant has argued that
`the applied Zaboklicki reference should be removed from consideration
`simply because the teachings and descriptions provided by this applied
`prior art reference differ from teachings and descriptions provided by other
`non-applied members of its patent family (namely, GB #2,016,874). Such
`a position is absurd.
`lf Zaboklicki DE 2,914,981 teaches that which
`applicant now claimed, then the fact that Zaboklicki GB #2,016,874 might
`not have provided these same teachings (even if true) is irrelevant to the
`fact that the claims ARE unpatentable over Zaboklicki DE 2,914,981.
`‘3
`
`11) Within the originally filed abstract of applicant’s 1981 past parent
`specification (i.e. note S.N. 06/317,510),
`the term “programming’ was
`explicitly defined to mean:
`
`It is important to note that Zaboklicki [DE 2,914,981] included an extensive “List of References” section which
`3
`described the operation of the Zaboklicki system element-by-element. This section was absent from Zaboklicki [GB 2,016,874].
`This additional description in Zaboklicki [DE 2,914,981] is not trivial in that it goes a long way to understanding the invention which
`was disclosed in the applied Zaboklicki prior art; cg. namely DE 2,914,981 (not GB 2,016,874).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 08/480,392
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2614
`
`“everything transmitted over television or radio intended for
`communication of entertainment or to instruct or inform”.
`
`[see lines 4-7 in the abstract of US patent #4,694,490]
`
`Today this definition is in conflict with applicant’s present needs (e.g. it too
`refutes applicant’s claim to the earlier 1981 priority date 14). Being such,
`applicant has argued that this explicitly stated definition should be ignored
`and given no weight because the “abstrac
`as applicant alleges, was not
`technically part of his 1981 written description. The examiner rejects this
`allegation too. The examiner points out: that the originally filed abstract
`was certainly part of the originally filed disclosure of applicant’s 1981
`parent application on which all issues must be considered/based and that
`the definition of “programming” that was provided by this originally filed
`abstract is completely consistent with the way that it was used throughout
`the 1981 disclosure.
`
`12) Applicant seems willing to acknowledge that the “1987 inventions” that
`are

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket