UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`12/543,910
`
`08/19/2009
`
`Gordon E. Bremer
`
`KEMB—0109
`
`8306
`
`23377
`7590
`09/01/2010
`WOODCOCK WASHBURNLLP
`CIRA CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR
`2929 ARCH STREET
`1>1111Au111>111A,1>A 19104-21191
`
`HA, DAC V
`
`2611
`
`09/01/2010
`
`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 (KW 04,07)
`
`(Samsung V. Rembrandt)
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1308
`
`Exhibit 1308 01/10
`
`

`
`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
` 12/543,910 BREMER, GORDON F.
`
`
`Examine,
`Art Unit
`Dac V. Ha
`2611
`
`-- 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 Q’ MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM 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 timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`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 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 19 August 2009.
`
`2a)I:I This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IZ This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I 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 Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4) C|aim(s) 1-100 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above c|aim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`( (
`
`5)|:I Claim s)
`
`)
`6)XI Claim s 19 21-27 29-35 58 60-66 68-69 72 74-80 83 86 88-94 96-99 is/are rejected.
`
`
`
`7) C|aim(s) 1-18 20 28 36-57 59 67 70 71 73 81 84 85 87 95 and 100 is/are objected to.
`
`8)I:I C|aim(s) j are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10)IXI The drawing(s) filed on 19 August 2009 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:I All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.I:I 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.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO—892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson‘s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) IZI Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date j.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`4) I] Interview Summary (PTO—413)
`Paper NOIS)/M3” Date j
`5) I:I Notice Of Inf0rm3I Patent APPIICBIIOW
`6) D Other: j.
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20100812
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1308 02/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Objections
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-18, 37-57, 96-100 are objected to because of the following
`
`informalitiesz
`
`Claim 1, line 9, “the first data sequence” should be changed to i.e. "a first data
`
`sequence" to avoid potential antecedent basis problem.
`
`Similar problem exists in claim 37.
`
`Claims 96-100 seem to have incorrect dependency (i.e. should be depending
`
`from claims 86 on).
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in
`the United States.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 19, 21, 23-27, 29, 34, 86, 88-94, 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
`
`as being anticipated by Siwiak (US 5,537,398).
`
`Re claim 19, Siwiak discloses:
`
`“a processor” (Fig. 6, elements 606, 610);
`
`“transmission of first data with a first modulation method followed by second data
`
`with a second modulation method, wherein the first modulation method is different than
`
`Exhibit 1308 03/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`the second modulation method, and wherein the first data comprises an indication of an
`
`impending change from the first modulation method to the second modulation method”
`
`in Fig. 2; col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 2; col. 4, lines 31-39; abstract.
`
`Further, even though Siwiak does not explicitly disclose "a memory having stored
`
`therein executable instructions for execution by the processor", it should be inherent
`
`that the "processor" of Siwiak must have some associate memory with instruction
`
`information stored therein for execution by such processor.
`
`Re claim 86, see similar subject matter in claim 19 above, wherein elements
`
`606, 610 teach all first, second and third logic.
`
`Re claim 21, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the first modulation method is a
`
`frequency shift keying modulation” in col. 6, lines 25-29.
`
`Re claim 23, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the second modulation method is
`
`different than the first modulation method in performance" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 24, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the first modulation method has a
`
`lower performance than the second modulation method" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 25, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the second modulation method is
`
`different than the first modulation in data rate" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 26, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the first modulation method has a
`
`lower data rate than the second modulation method" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 27, Siwiak further discloses “wherein transmission of the second data
`
`is according to a specific time interval" in Fig. 2; col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 2.
`
`Exhibit 1308 04/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`Re claim 29, Siwiak further discloses “transmitter configured to transmit the first
`
`data and the second data" in Fig. 5, 2; col. 3, lines 45-48; col. 4, lines 31-39.
`
`Re claim 34, Siwiak further discloses "the first data comprises an address" in col.
`
`4, lines 31-39; Fig. 2.
`
`Re claims 88-94, 98, see similar claimed subject matter in claims 21-27, 34,
`
`respectively.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 30-33, 96, 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Siwiak.
`
`Re claim 30, Siwiak discloses all claimed subject matter of claim 30, as stated
`
`above, except for “the memory has stored therein program code for the first modulation
`
`method and the second modulation method". However, it would have been easily
`
`understood by one skilled the art that, for software implementation standpoint, the
`
`(associate) memory would have stored therein information in the form of program code
`
`for execution by the processor.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1308 05/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`Re claims 31-32, the claimed subject matter "random access memory" and
`
`“read—only memory" would have been easily realized by one skill in the art as application
`
`specific for the type of memory used.
`
`Re claim 33, the claimed subject matter “the memory has stored therein program
`
`code for a multipoint communication protocol” would have been easily realized by one
`
`skilled in the art since Siwiak also directs to "multipoint communication" (Fig. 5).
`
`Re claims 96, 97, see similar claimed subject matter in claims 30, 33 above,
`
`respectively.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 22, 35, 58, 60-66, 68, 69, 72, 74-80, 82, 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Siwiak in view of Frodigh et al. (US 6,125,148)
`
`(hereafter Frodigh).
`
`Re claim 58, Siwiak discloses “transmitting, from a transmitter, a first sequence”
`
`"transmission segment, wherein the first sequence is modulated according to a first
`
`modulation method; indicating in the first sequence that a second sequence of’
`
`“transmission segment will use a second modulation method, wherein the second
`
`modulation method is different from the first modulation method; and transmitting the
`
`second sequence of’ “transmission segment, wherein the second sequence follows the
`
`first sequence and wherein the second sequence is modulated according to the second
`
`modulation method” in Fig. 1, 5, 6; Abstract; col. 3, line 19 to col. 4, line 2; col. 4, lines
`
`31-39; col. 7, lines 33-37; col. 9, lines 25-44.
`
`Siwiak differs from the claimed invention in that Siwiak does not disclsoes "burst”.
`
`Exhibit 1308 06/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`Frodigh, in the same field of endeavor, discloses communication between base
`
`station and mobile station wherein the system utilizes “burst” format (Fig. 3, 4; col. 7,
`
`line 48 to col. 8, line 5).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to incorporate the transmission of “burst” format, taught in
`
`Frodigh, into Siwiak and predictable result would have still been expected.
`
`Re claim 35, see claim 58 above for “burst transmission” claimed subject matter.
`
`Re claim 72, see corresponding method claim 58.
`
`Re claims 22, 61, Siwiak discloses all claimed subject matter of claim 22, as
`
`stated above, except for "wherein second modulation method is a shift keying
`
`modulation". Frodigh, in the same field of endeavor, discloses communication system
`
`that supports multiple modulation methods (Abstract; col. 3, lines 56-67). Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention
`
`to incorporate the teaching of multiple modulation methods supported by the system,
`
`taught by Frodigh, into Siwiak, and predictable result can still be expected.
`
`Re claim 60, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the first modulation method is a
`
`frequency shift keying modulation” in col. 6, lines 25-29.
`
`Re claim 62, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the second modulation method is
`
`different than the first modulation method in performance" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 63, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the first modulation method has a
`
`lower performance than the second modulation method" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Exhibit 1308 07/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`Re claim 64, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the second modulation method is
`
`different than the first modulation in data rate" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 65, Siwiak further discloses “wherein the first modulation method has a
`
`lower data rate than the second modulation method" in col. 6, lines 23-29.
`
`Re claim 66, Siwiak further discloses “wherein transmission of the second data
`
`is according to a specific time interval" in Fig. 2; col. 3, line 61 to col. 4, line 2.
`
`Re claim 68, the claimed subject matter “the memory has stored therein program
`
`code for a multipoint communication protocol” would have been easily realized by one
`
`skilled in the art since Siwiak also directs to "multipoint communication" (Fig. 5).
`
`Re claim 69, Siwiak further discloses "the first data comprises an address" in col.
`
`4, lines 31-39; Fig. 2.
`
`Re claims 74-80, 82, 83, 99, see similar claimed subject matter of claims 60-66,
`
`68, 69, 58, respectively.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`7.
`
`Claim 20, 28, 36, 59, 67, 70, 71, 73, 81, 84, 85, 87, 95, 100 are objected to as
`
`being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
`
`claims.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-18, 37-57 are allowed.
`
`Conclusion
`
`9.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure.
`
`Exhibit 1308 08/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`Sridhar et al. (US 5,550,881)
`
`Gilbert et al. (US 5,559,810)
`
`Poon et al. (US 5,940,438)
`
`Needham et al. (US 5,764,699)
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Dac V. Ha whose telephone number is 571-272-3040.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on 4/4.
`
`lf attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 571-272-3024. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/Dac V. Hal
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
`
`Exhibit 1308 09/10
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/543,910
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2611
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1308 10/10