Control No. 90/012,637
`Docket No. 51020-012USC1RX3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Patent Owner: MobileMedia Ideas LLC
`
`Patent No.: 6,427,078
`
`Control No.: 90/012,637
`
`:
`Reexam Request Date Sep
`
`t. 14 2 12
`,
`0
`
`Title: Device for Personal
`
`Communications, Data Collection and
`
`Data Processing, and a Circuit Card
`
`
`
`am No" 1757
`
`,
`Group Art Un1t: 3992
`
`Examiner: Luke S. WASSUM
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Madam:
`
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`This is a response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013. Although no fee is believed
`
`due in connection with this paper, the Commissioner is authorized to charge any fees that may be
`
`required in connection with this paper to Deposit Account No. 50-3081.
`
`Remarks and Arguments begin on page 2 of this paper.
`
`E-Watch, Inc.
`E-Watch, Inc.
`EXH. 2003
`EXH. 2003
`Petitioner – HTC Corporation et. al
`Petitioner — HTC Corporation et. a1
`Patent Owner – E-Watch, Inc.
`Patent Owner — E-Watch, Inc.
`IPR2014-00987
`IPR2014-00987
`
`Page 1 of 24
`
`Page 1 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`REMARKS
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejection in View of the
`
`remarks below.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 18, 34, 73, and 77-79 are subject to reexamination. Of those claims,
`
`only claims 1 and 73 are independent.
`
`The Office Action
`
`In the Office Action, independent claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`
`over Maekawa (US Patent 5,490,202) in View of Hassan (US Patent 5,550,646) and Hoda (US
`
`Patent 6,094,282). Claim 1 was also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obVious over Maekawa
`
`in View of Hassan and Stempeck (US Patent 4,571,627). Claim 1 was also rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obVious over Maekawa in View of Hassan and Yomogz’zawa (US Patent
`
`5,172,151). Claim 1 was also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obVious over Maekawa in View
`
`of Hassan and Yuyama (US Patent 5,612,732).
`
`Independent claim 73 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hassan in View of Hoda. Claim 73 was also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Hassan in View of Stempeck. Claim 73 was also rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Hassan in View of Yomogizawa. Claim 73 was also rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hassan in View of Yuyama.1
`
`1 At pages 74-75, the Office Action also included a conditional and modified adoption of some
`of the Requester’s proposed rejections “to the extent that the 'transmission' [sic: transmitting]
`
`Page 2 of 25
`
`Page 2 of 24
`
`Page 2 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`The Patent Owner respectfully traverses all these rejections. There are no amendments to
`
`the claims under reexamination and the arguments presented below do not, and are not intended
`
`to, change the scope of any claim.
`
`Argument
`
`As is explained in detail below, there are five structural limitations set forth in claims 1
`
`and 73 which are not disclosed in Hassan. These deficiencies in the disclosure of Hassan are not
`
`made up for by the other references cited in the Office Action. Many of the positions set forth
`
`herein are supported by the Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132
`
`(hereinafter “Madisetti Decl.), which is submitted herewith.
`
`A.
`
`Summary Statement of Reasons for Allowance
`
`Claims 1 and 73 call for m processing elements for processing image information.
`
`These are (1) the “microprocessor” of which the” portable cellular mobile phone” is comprised,
`
`and (2) the “means for processing” of which the “camera unit” is comprised. Claims 1 and 73
`
`also call for a specific division of processing image information between the two processing
`
`elements. The “means for processing” is for “processing .
`
`.
`
`. image information .
`
`.
`
`. for later
`
`recall and processing.” The “microprocessor” is adapted “to process image information received
`
`limitation could be interpreted as being limited to the transmission of images of 'physical
`messages', as argued by the Requester.” That interpretation of the transmitting limitation is
`incorrect for the reasons explained in the Amendment after Final Rejection dated April 23, 2012,
`at pages 12-23, in prior reexamination Control Nos. 90/01 1,736 and 90/01 1,883, and those
`reasons are incorporated herein by reference. Furthermore, that interpretation could not possibly
`be correct because the Examiner ultimately entered new claims 77-79 in those prior
`reexaminations.
`
`Page 3 of 25
`
`Page 3 of 24
`
`Page 3 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`by the camera unit,” and the “microprocessor” has a “means .
`
`.
`
`. for transmitting” coupled to it
`
`for “transmittin ima e information rocessed b said micro rocessor to another location usin a
`y
`
`radio frequency channel.”
`
`In contrast, Hassan (the primary reference) teaches a single processing element 205 that
`
`handles all image processing fianctions. Hassan does not disclose two processing elements for
`
`processing image information with the claimed particular division of processing image
`
`information between them. For this reason, claims 1 and 73 are patentable over Hassan.
`
`There are four other reasons as to why claims 1 and 73 are patentable over Hassan.
`
`Hassan is directed to an image capture device for capturing an image and then generating a
`
`digital representation of the image which is applied to a fax modem for transmission to a remote
`
`fax machine by a telephone communication link. (Abstract) In one embodiment of Hassan, the
`
`telephone communication link is implemented “using a conventional RJ 1 1 jack.” (Col. 2, lines
`
`1-3.) Hassan also discloses that “Alternatively, the image capture device may .
`
`.
`
`. include a built
`
`in cellular telephone” (col. 2, lines 4-5), and in this alternative embodiment, the cellular
`
`telephone is used to transmit the fax instead of the wired connection. However, Hassan
`
`discloses very few details about that “built in cellular telephone,” what it does, or what
`
`components are contained therein. In particular, Hassan discloses nothing about whether the
`
`processing or displaying of image information obtained by the “image capture device” is
`
`performed using any component in the “built in cellular telephone” or whether the “image
`
`capture device” is controlled or operated by any component in the “built in cellular telephone.”
`
`Therefore, in contrast to claims 1 and 73, Hassan does not disclose a “microprocessor” of
`
`the portable cellular mobile phone adapted “to process image information received by the camera
`
`Page 4 of 25
`
`Page 4 of 24
`
`Page 4 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`
`unit.” In contrast to claims 1 and 73, Hassan also does not disclose that a “user interface” of the
`
`portable cellular mobile phone is “for enabling a user to input signals to operate the camera
`
`
`unit.” In addition, in contrast to claims 1 and 73, Hassan does not disclose that a “display” of the
`
`p_ortable mobile cellular phone is for “presenting image information obtained by the camera
`
`
`unit.” Finally, in contrast to claims 1 and 73, Hassan does not disclose a “microprocessor” of the
`
`p_ortable cellular mobile phone that is “adapted to control operation of the camera unit in
`
`response to input signals from the user interface.”
`
`For these reasons, claims 1 and 73 are patentable over the art of record.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction
`
`Claim 73 is directed to a portable cellular mobile phone comprising: (1) a built in camera
`
`unit for obtaining image information; (2) a user interface for enabling a user to input signals m
`
`operate the camera unit; (3) a display for presenting image information obtained by the camera
`
`m; (4) a microprocessor adapted to control the operations of the camera unit in response to
`
`input signals from the user interface, and to process image information received by the camera
`
`m; and (5) means, coupled to said microprocessor, for transmitting image information
`
`processed by said microprocessor to another location using a radio frequency channel. Claim 73
`
`also specifies What the camera unit comprises, i.e., “optics,
`
`an image sensor,” and “means for
`
`3,
`
`(C
`
`processing .
`
`.
`
`. image information .
`
`.
`
`. for later recall and processing.”
`
`Claim 73 has been rejected over Hassan in view of various secondary references that are
`
`relied on only for the “display” limitation. As is explained in detail below, at least five structural
`
`Page 5 of 25
`
`Page 5 of 24
`
`Page 5 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`limitations in claim 73 are not disclosed in Hassan. These missing structural limitations of claim
`
`73 are also not disclosed or suggested by the other prior art references of record.
`
`Hassan is directed to an “image capture device” for capturing an image and then
`
`generating a digital representation of the image which is applied to a fax modem for transmission
`
`to a remote fax machine by a telephone communication link. (Abstract) The Office Action’s
`
`rejection focuses on the following sentence in Hassan: “Alternatively, the image capture device
`
`may
`
`include a built in cellular telephone.”
`
`It is important to note that Hassan describes a special purpose device — its stated purpose
`
`is to capture images, and subsequently either send those captured images via a fax modem and
`
`telephone link to a remote fax machine (see FIG. 3), or send the captured images to a printer (see
`
`FIG. 4). (Madisetti Decl. atfll 16.)
`
`In contrast, claim 73 is directed to “a portable cellular mobile phone” with a “built in
`
`camera unit,” and that “camera unit” is built into the portable cellular mobile phone in a
`
`particular way as called for in claim 73. A portable cellular mobile phone with a built in camera
`
`unit is inherently a multifunction device with various capabilities including making and receiving
`
`speech calls as well as obtaining image information. (Col. 3, lines 5-21 and 37-53; Madisetti
`
`Decl. at 1] 14.) The information processing and design considerations for achieving a
`
`multifunction portable cellular mobile phone are very different from the information processing
`
`and design considerations of a special purpose device such as Hassan. (Madisetti Decl. at 11 25.)
`
`Claim 73 does m cover the general concept of integrating a camera unit into a portable
`
`cellular mobile phone, nor does claim 73 cover all possible ways of integrating a camera unit
`
`Page 6 of 25
`
`Page 6 of 24
`
`Page 6 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`into a portable cellular mobile phone. Instead, claim 73 is directed to one particular way of
`
`integrating a camera unit into a portable cellular mobile phone, which happens to be highly
`
`advantageous in the context of a multifunction device with various capabilities that include
`
`making and receiving speech calls.
`
`More specifically, claim 73 includes five particular structural limitations that are not
`
`disclosed or suggested in Hassan, and those five structural limitations provide significant
`
`advantages in the context of building a camera unit into a portable mobile cellular phone.
`
`(Madisetti Decl. at 1] 26.) And when these five structural features are combined into a portable
`
`cellular mobile phone, the resulting phone advantageously provides a high level of integration
`
`between the portable cellular mobile phone and the built in camera unit. Each of these five
`
`structural limitations of claim 73 is discussed in detail below.
`
`C.
`
`Structural Limitations Found in Claim 73 and Not Disclosed in Hassan
`
`Before we turn to the structural limitations of claim 73 that are not disclosed in Hassan, it
`
`is important to note that both the Requester and the Examiner correctly treated the preamble of
`
`claim 73 as a limitation. This is apparent from the fact that the Requester tried to read the
`
`“portable cellular mobile phone” onto Hassan (see page 55 of the Request for reexamination);
`
`and from page 17 of the Office Action, which also tried to read that limitation onto Hassan.
`
`Moreover, not only do the Requester, the Examiner, and the Patent Owner all agree that
`
`the preamble is limiting, the Examiner in a previous reexamination of the same patent also made
`
`an x li it fin in that th
`
`r am 1
`
`f laim i
`
`limitin . More specifically, in reexamination
`
`control number 90/011,833, which also involved the ‘078 patent, the Examiner indicated that
`
`Page 7 of 25
`
`Page 7 of 24
`
`Page 7 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`The examiner agrees that the "portable cellular mobile phone" limitation in the
`preamble [of claim 73] is limiting. Response, pp. 14-16. The combination of
`the preamble and the body of the claim would lack meaning if the preamble
`recited a "portable cellular mobile phone comp_rising....," but
`the actual
`components were surprisingly not part of a portable cellular
`telephone
`structure. (Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2012 at p. 28, emphasis added)
`
`Because the preamble of claim 73 is limiting and it recites a “portable cellular mobile
`
`phone,” the body of claim 73 is a list of items of which the claimed portable cellular mobile
`
`phone is comprised. More specifically, that list includes: (1) a built in camera unit of which the
`
`portable cellular mobile phone of claim 73 is comprised; (2) a user interface of which the
`
`portable cellular mobile phone of claim 73 is comprised; (3) a display of which the portable
`
`cellular mobile phone of claim 73 is comprised; (4) a microprocessor of which the portable
`
`cellular mobile phone of claim 73 is comprised; and (5) “means, coupled to said microprocessor,
`
`for transmitting image information ...” of which the portable cellular mobile phone of claim 73
`
`is comprised.
`
`The relationships set forth in the previous paragraph are important because to sustain a
`
`rejection, it is improper to treat the claims “as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the
`
`part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning. . ..
`
`[U]nless a reference discloses within the four comers of the document not only all of the
`
`limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as
`
`recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed.” Therasense
`
`Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and C0., 93 USPQ2d 1481, 1485 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).
`
`Page 8 of 25
`
`Page 8 of 24
`
`Page 8 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`The five structural distinctions in claim 73 that are not disclosed in Hassan are now
`
`-
`d1scussed.
`
`2
`
`1.
`
`The First Structural Distinction:
`
`Claim 73 Requires Two Processing Elements that Both Process Image Information
`
`A first structural limitation found in claim 73 but not disclosed in Hassan relates to the
`
`two processing elements found in claim 73 and the division of responsibility for processing
`
`image information between them. More specifically, claim 73 is directed to
`
`A portable cellular mobile phone comprising:
`a built in camera unit for obtaining image information;
`a user interface for enabling a user to input signals to operate the camera unit;
`a display for presenting image information obtained by the camera unit;
`in
`a microprocessor adapted to control the operations of the camera unit
`response to input signals from the user interface, and to process image
`information received by the camera unit; and
`means, coupled to said microprocessor, for transmitting image information
`processed by said microprocessor to another location using a radio frequency
`channel; and
`
`wherein the camera unit comprises:
`optics for obtaining image information;
`an image sensor for obtaining image information; and
`means for processing and for storing at least a portion of the image
`information obtained by the camera unit for later recall and processing.
`
`2 In addition to these five structural distinctions, Hassan fails as a reference for the additional
`and independent reason that Hassan ’s image capture device is not, itself, a portable cellular
`mobile phone comprising a built in camera unit. More specifically, the Office Action does not
`allege that Hassan ’s image capture device is a portable cellular mobile phone. Instead, the
`Office Action relies on a statement in Hassan that some embodiments of the image capture
`device can “include a built in cellular telephone.” Thus, the Hassan reference does not describe
`a “portable cellular mobile phone” “comprising” a “built in camera unit.” Instead Hassan
`discloses an image capture device that in some embodiments includes a built in cellular
`telephone.
`
`Page 9 of 25
`
`Page 9 of 24
`
`Page 9 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`The portions of the claim underlined above make it clear that M processing elements are
`
`required to satisfy claim 73, and both of those processing elements process image information.
`
`The first processing element required by claim 73 is the “microprocessor,” of which the portable
`
`cellular mobile phone is comprised. This microprocessor is adapted “to process image
`
`information received by the camera unit.” The second processing element required by claim 73
`
`is the “means for processing ...,” of which the built in camera unit is comprised. This means is
`
`“for processing and for storing at least a portion of the image information obtained by the camera
`
`unit for later recall and processing.” For convenience, this paper refers to the “microprocessor”
`
`and the “means for processing” collectively as “processing elements.”
`
`The division of the processing of image information between these two processing
`
`elements, as recited in claim 73, is not found in Hassan. To the contrary — Hassan contains only
`
`a single processor (microcontroller 205), and the Office Action points to that processor as
`
`corresponding to m the “microprocessor” and the “means for processing” limitations of claim
`
`73. More specifically, pages 19, 35, 49, and 64 of the Office Action map the “microprocessor”
`
`limitation of claim 73 onto Hassan ’s microcontroller 205 in FIG. 2 and col. 3, lines 27-29 et seq.,
`
`of Hassan. Then, pages 21, 37, 51, and 66 of the Office Action map the “means for processing”
`
`limitation of claim 73 onto the same microcontroller 205 in Hassan. Because claim 73 requires
`
`two separate processing elements and the Office Action mapped both of those processing
`
`elements onto the same microcontroller 205 in Hassan, the Office Action’s mapping of claim 73
`
`does not satisfy claim 73.
`
`Page 10 of 25
`
`Page 10 of 24
`
`Page 10 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`Using Two Processing Elements that Both Process Image Information
`a.
`Provides Significant Advantages in the Context of a Portable Cellular Mobile Phone
`
`The claimed structure comprising two processing elements that both process image
`
`information is highly advantageous for a portable cellular mobile phone comprising a built in
`
`camera unit. A portable cellular mobile phone comprising a built in camera unit is inherently a
`
`multifunction device, as it is able to handle speech calls, as well as obtain image information,
`
`process image information for later recall and processing, and transmit image information.
`
`(Madisetti Decl. at 11 34.)
`
`In a multifunction device with these capabilities, certain functions (e.g., operating system
`
`management, application processing, call control and user interface control) may be performed
`
`by a central microprocessor such as the “low power RISC processor” identified at col. 2, line 42
`
`of the ‘078 patent. When these functions are performed by such a central microprocessor, it may
`
`be advantageous to offload certain specialized types of processing image information (e. g.,
`
`compressing image information obtained by the camera unit) and storing image information for
`
`later recall and processing onto a separate processing element of the camera unit (e. g., “means
`
`for processing” of claim 73). Allocating responsibility for “processing and for storing at least a
`
`portion of the image information obtained by the camera unit for later recall and processing” to
`
`the “means for processing ...” of claim 73 can advantageously keep the “microprocessor” of
`
`claim 73 free to handle the other tasks of the cell phone, e.g., operating system management,
`
`application processing, call control, and “respon[ding] to input signals from the user interface.”
`
`Keeping the microprocessor free to handle the last of these tasks can be particularly
`
`Page 11 of 25
`
`Page 11 of 24
`
`Page 11 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`advantageous because user interface signals are often time-sensitive. For example, delays in
`
`accepting input from a keypad would be noticeable to users. (Madisetti Decl. at 11 35.)
`
`Conversely, it may be advantageous to leave responsibility for other tasks related to
`
`processing of image information with the microprocessor, to which the “means .
`
`.
`
`. for
`
`transmitting” is coupled. More specifically, because the means for transmitting is coupled to the
`
`microprocessor, it may be advantageous to allocate to the microprocessor those tasks related to
`
`processing of image information that are performed right before an image is transmitted. One
`
`example of this arises in the context of transmission of images via different modes (e. g.,
`
`electronic mail as opposed to a messaging service), as described in the specification at col. 7,
`
`lines 37-40 and col. 8, lines 16-18. As a more specific example, it may be advantageous to
`
`process image information that is about to be transmitted via email in a different way than image
`
`information that is about to be transmitted via SMS or MMS. In that illustrative situation, the
`
`same microprocessor that is used to accept the user’s selection of which mode to use for
`
`transmission (e.g., email vs. SMS or MMS) can advantageously also be used to perform
`
`whatever processing of image information is appropriate for the selected mode before the
`
`transmission (by the means for transmitting) occurs. It may also be advantageous to use a
`
`microprocessor that is aware of which communication channels are available (e. g., the
`
`microprocessor of the portable cellular mobile phone) to decide when to send a particular image
`
`(e. g., by email or SMS/MMS) and to process the associated image information prior to
`
`transmission. For example, it may be desirable to base a decision of when to send an image
`
`based on whether data services are available in a particular cell, or on charges for transmitting
`
`the image using different modes and/or at different times. (Madisetti Decl. at 11 36.)
`
`Page 12 of 25
`
`Page 12 of 24
`
`Page 12 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`Battery life can also be an important issue in portable cellular mobile phones because
`
`often they are left on for very long periods of time (e.g., all day long) so that they can receive
`
`incoming calls at any time. Allocating some functions to a microprocessor (such as the “low
`
`power RISC processor” identified at col. 2, line 42 of the ‘078 patent) and other fianctions (e. g.,
`
`specialized types of processing of image information such as compression) to a second
`
`processing element can advantageously permit the second processing element to remain off most
`
`of the time, which can advantageously extend battery life. (Madisetti Decl. at 11 37.)
`
`Hassan does not have two processing elements, and therefore does not enjoy the
`
`advantages that flow from a two processing element architecture. But in the context of Hassan,
`
`the absence of two processing elements does not pose a problem. Hassan can take pictures and
`
`then, at a later time, fax those pictures to a remote fax machine or print them. But because
`
`Hassan ’s image capture device does not have to do two things at the same time, there would be
`
`no motivation to divide the task of processing image information between two distinct
`
`processing elements or to off-load heavy duty processing of image information from the main
`
`processor 205. And, in fact, Hassan does not disclose such a division. (Madisetti Decl. at 11 38.)
`
`In addition, because Hassan ’s image capture device does not have to receive incoming calls, it
`
`would not have to remain on all the time, which would make battery life less important in the
`
`context of Hassan.
`
`Because Hassan does not have two processing elements that both process image
`
`information, Claim 73 is believed patentable over Hassan.
`
`Page 13 of 25
`
`Page 13 of 24
`
`Page 13 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`2.
`
`The Second Structural Distinction:
`
`Claim 73 Requires a Microprocessor of which the Portable
`Cellular Mobile Phone Is Comprised to Process Image Information
`
`Claim 73 recites:
`
`A portable cellular mobile phone comprising:
`a built in camera unit for obtaining image information;
`
`in
`a microprocessor adapted to control the operations of the camera unit
`response to input signals from the user interface, and to process image
`information received by the camera unit; and
`means, coupled to said microprocessor, for transmitting image information
`processed by said microprocessor to another location using a radio frequency
`channel;
`
`and wherein the camera unit comprises ...:
`
`Hassan does not disclose that any processing of image information is implemented in a
`
`microprocessor in the cellular telephone that is built in to some embodiments of Hassan ’s image
`
`capture device. To the contrary — in Hassan, all of the processing of image information that is
`
`disclosed is performed by w processor 205 in Hassan ’s image capture device, which is present
`
`in all embodiments of Hassan (and would therefore rm be located within any cellular telephone
`
`that is only built in to certain embodiments ofHassan ’s image capture device).
`
`The only portion of Hassan that provides details regarding the interaction between the
`
`rest of Hassan ’s image capture device and the “built in cellular telephone” in Hassan reads as
`
`follows:
`
`A facsimile interface 219 is provided in the image capture device in order to
`prepare an enhanced digital
`image for transmission to a remote facsimile
`machine. Facsimile interface 219 includes a fax modem 240 and associated
`
`control electronics, which may be arranged to send the bit map image using
`standard FAX protocol, Group 3, with normal FAX transmission hand shaking.
`
`Page 14 of 25
`
`Page 14 of 24
`
`Page 14 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`The output of fax modem 240 is applied to the telephone network via a
`physical connection through jack 130, which, as stated previously, may be a
`conventional RJ 11 jack. Alternatively, the output of fax modem 240 may be
`applied as an input to the transmitter section of a cellular telephone.
`(Col. 4,
`line 65 — col. 5, line 9)
`
`Beyond this disclosure that the output of fax modem 240 is applied “as an input to the
`
`transmitter section of [the] cellular telephone,” Hassan provides no additional details of the
`
`interaction between the image capture device and the “cellular telephone.” And more
`
`specifically, Hassan contains no teaching or suggestion that the cellular telephone built into
`
`some embodiments of Hassan includes a microprocessor that is adapted to “process image
`
`information.”
`
`Furthermore, placing a microprocessor that is adapted to process image information in
`
`the transmitter section of the cellular telephone of Hassan would not make sense, because the
`
`signal that comes out of the fax modem 240 in Hassan is already in a format that is suitable for
`
`transmission via fax before it arrives at the transmitter section (as evidenced by the fact that that
`
`same signal can be applied directly to a landline via a R] 1 1 jack in Hassan). Thus, the
`
`transmitter section of Hassan ’s cellular telephone is merely being used as a replacement for an
`
`RJl 1 jack connection.3 (Madisetti Decl. at 1] 21.)
`
`3 Although Maekawa has not been applied against claim 73, Maekawa is believed to be relevant
`because it is the only reference cited in the Office Action that actually is a portable cellular
`mobile phone. Maekawa explains that its “internal circuit 13 has a transmitting/receiving section
`14, a CPU 15 and a memory/peripheral circuit 16” (col. 4, lines 33-34), and FIG. 12 of
`Maekawa clearly shows that the CPU 15 is located outside the transmitting/receiving section 14
`of Maekawa ’s telephone. (Madisetti Decl. at 1] 22.) ...
`
`Page 15 of 25
`
`Page 15 of 24
`
`Page 15 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`In addition, claim 73 fiarther specifies that the information that is transmitted to another
`
`location by the “means for transmitting” is image information that was “processed by said
`
`microprocessor.” (For convenience, we shall herein refer to the “means, coupled to said
`
`microprocessor, for transmitting image information processed by said microprocessor to another
`
`location using a radio frequency channel” limitation as the “means for transmitting” limitation.)
`
`Claim 73 specifically recites “transmitting image information processed by said
`
`microprocessor to another location.” These portions of claim 73 therefore specify a relationship
`
`between the microprocessor of which the portable cellular mobile phone is comprised and the
`
`“means for transmitting” of which the portable cellular mobile phone is also comprised.
`
`Hassan does not teach or suggest the particular structure of claim 73 that requires a
`
`“microprocessor” of which the portable cellular mobile phone is comprised “to process image
`
`information received by the camera unit,” and “means for transmitting” of which the portable
`
`cellular mobile phone is also comprised to transmit “image information processed by said
`
`microprocessor to another location .
`
`. .”.
`
`In view of (a) Hassan ’s statement that the output of fax modem 240 is applied “as an input to the
`transmitter section of [the] cellular telephone” and (b) Maekawa ’s teaching that the CPU 15 is
`outside the transmitting/receiving section 14, even if one were to combine Maekawa ’s cellular
`telephone with Hassan, the resulting combination sfl would not teach or suggest a
`microprocessor comprised in the cellular telephone that is adapted to process image information.
`For if the output of fax modem 240 of Hassan were to be applied as an input to the transmitter
`section 14 of Maekawa, the CPU 15 of Maekawa would not perform any processing of image
`information (as required by claim 73). In other words, the signal from the Hassan ’s fax modem
`would arrive at and pass through the transmitter section of the cellular telephone in Hassan
`without passing through a microprocessor (like the CPU 15 in Maekawa) for processing of image
`information. (Madisetti Decl. at 1] 23-24.)
`
`Page 16 of 25
`
`Page 16 of 24
`
`Page 16 of 24
`
`

`

`Control No. 90/012,637
`
`Reply dated June 14, 2013
`(in response to the Office Action dated April 16, 2013)
`
`Claim 73 is therefore believed patentable over Hassan for these additional and
`
`independent reasons.
`
`3.
`
`The Third Structural Distinction:
`
`Claim 73 Requires the User Interface of the
`Portable Mobile Cellular Phone
`to Operate the Camera Unit
`
`A third structural limitation found in claim 73, but not found in Hassan, is the user
`
`interface, of which the portable cellular mobile phone is comprised, for “enabling a user to input
`
`signals to operate the camera unit ....” More specifically, claim 73 calls for
`
`A portable cellular mobile phone comprising:
`a built in camera unit for obtaining image information;
`a user interface for enabling a user to input signals to operate the camera unit;
`
`and wherein the camera unit comprises: ....
`
`Although Hassan does state that that “Alternatively, the image capture device
`
`may. . .include a built in cellular telephone”, Hassan contains no teaching or suggestion that it is
`
`the user interface of said built in cellular telephone that enables a user to in