_,*____
`
`_______
`
`1K
`
`E EPA/EPO/OEB
`0-80298 Munchen
`+49 89 23990
`'6'
`TX
`523 656 epmu d
`
`FAX +49 89 23994465
`Generaldirektion 2
`Directorate General 2
`Direction Générale 2
`
`Office européen
`des brevets
`
`Europaisches
`Patentamt
`
`European
`Patent Office
`,
`
`Viering, Jentschura & Partner
`Postfach 22 14 43
`80504 Mt'inchen
`ALLEMAGNE
`
`j
`
`Telephone Numbers:
`
`Primary Examiner
`(substantive examination)
`
`(+49-89) 2399-2297
`
`Formalities Officer I Assistant
`(Formalities and other matters)
`
`(+49-89) 2399-2211
`
`Application No.
`94 923 3571-2201
`Applicant
`FAKESPACE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ref.
`P 11770
`
`I
`-—v-
`
`. W
`I
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Communication pursuant to Article 96(2) and Rule 51(2) EPC
`
`The examination of the above-identified application has revealed that it does not meet the requirements of the
`EurOpean Patent Convention for the reasons enclosed herewith. If the deficiencies indicated are not rectified
`the application may be refused pursuant to Article 97(1) EPC.
`
`You are invited to file your observations and insofar as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, to correct
`the indicated deficiencies within a period
`
`of
`
`4
`
`months
`
`from the notification of this communication, this period being computed in accordance with Rules 78(3) and
`83(2) and (4) EPC.
`
`.
`
`Amendments to the description, claims and drawings are to be filed where appropriate within the said period
`in three copies on separate sheets (Rule 36(1) EPC).
`
`Failure to comply with this invitation in due time will result in the application being deemed to be
`withdrawn (Article 96(3) EPC).
`
`
`
`KOENlG W P F
`
`Primary Examiner
`for the Examining Division
`
`Enclosure(s):
`
`2 page/s reasons (Form 2906)
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`Registered Letter
`EPO Form 2001 10.escsx
`
`EXRE coded
`’
`v
`V
`atmwm
`
`-
`
`Harmonix Exhibit 1017
`
`KK22537. 21.06.1999
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`Harmonix Exhibit 1017
`
`

`

` I
`Q) 32%?”
`252;
`1
`223125532?“
`94 923 357.1
`
`Bescheid/Protokoll (Anlage)
`
`Communication/Minutes (Annex)
`
`Notification/Procés-verbal (Annexe)
`
`35
`
`Date
`
`
`
`2 l}, 05, 99 Demande n": Feuille
`
`
`
`The examination is being carried out on the following application documents:
`
`Description, pages:
`
`1-47
`
`as originally filed
`
`Claims, No.:
`
`1-23
`
`as originally filed
`
`Drawings, sheets:
`
`1/7-7/7
`
`as originally filed
`
`Article 84 EPC
`
`1.) Although claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 16, 21, and 22 have been drafted as separate in-
`
`dependent claims, they appear to relate effectively to the same subject-matter and
`
`to differ from each other only with regard to the definition of the subject-matter for
`
`which protection is sought and in respect of the terminology used for the features
`
`of that subject-matter. The aforementioned claims therefore lack conciseness.
`
`Moreover, lack of clarity of the claims as a whole arises, since the plurality of in-
`
`.
`
`dependent claims makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the matter for
`which protection is sought, and places an undue burden on others seeking to
`
`establish the extent of the protection.
`
`Hence, claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 16, 21, and 22 do not meet the requirements of Article
`
`84 EPC.
`
`2.)
`
`In order to overcome this objection, it would appear appropriate to file an
`
`amended set of claims defining the relevant subject-matter in terms of a single
`
`independent claim in each category followed by dependent claims covering fea-
`
`tures which are merely optional (Rules 29(3) and (4) EPC).
`
`Page 2 of 3
`EP0 Form 2906 01.91CSX
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Bescheld/Protokoll (Anlage)
`
`Communication/Minutes (Annex)
`
`Notification/Procés-verbal (Annexe)
`
`Z?
`
`94 923 357.1
`233E§$§E0.;
`2
`213;:
`32:2“ 21,". 66. 99
`
`
`FeuilleDate Demande n':
`
`Article) 56 EPC
`
`3.)
`
`The subject-matter specified in claim 1 would not appear to be inventive over the
`
`prior art cited in the application (US Patent 4 081 829; see page 6, line 34 to
`
`page 7, line 7): In response to audio input (music), the apparatus known in the art
`
`controls the display of two-dimensional rings or solid shapes (virtual environment).
`
`Conclusion
`
`4.)
`
`In view of the above objection it is not at present practicable to carry out a full
`
`examination of the application. The applicant is therefore requested to file suitable
`
`amendments which take account of the above comments and upon which the
`
`further prosecution of the application is to be based.
`
`5.)
`
`When filing amended claims the applicant should at the same time bring the
`
`description into conformity with the amended claims. Care should be taken during
`
`revision, especially of the introductory portion and any statements of problem or
`
`advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the
`
`application as originally filed (Article 123(2) EPC).
`
`6.)
`
`Reference signs in parentheses should be inserted in the claims to increase their
`
`intelligibility, Rule 29(7) EPC. This applies to both the preamble and characterising
`
`portion (see the Guidelines, C-lll, 4.11).
`
`. 7.)
`
`To meet the requirements of Rule 27(1)(b) EPC, the document D1 should be
`
`identified in the description and the relevant background art disclosed therein
`
`should be briefly discussed.
`
`8.)
`
`in order to facilitate the examination of the conformity of the amended application
`
`with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, the applicant is requested to clearly
`
`identify the amendments carried out, irrespective of whether they concern
`
`amendments by addition, replacement or deletion, and to indicate the passages of
`
`the application as filed on which these amendments are based.
`
`If the applicant regards it as appropriate these indications could be submitted in
`
`handwritten form on a copy of the relevant parts of the application as filed‘
`
`17. 0a 99 (63%W.
`
`9
`
`Page 3 of 3
`EP0 Form 2906 01.91CSX
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`