`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`W
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Omce
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspl.o.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`10/341,528
`
`01/13/2003
`
`Thomas E. Gorsuch
`
`2479.1053-007
`
`7146
`
`HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
`530 VIRGINIA ROAD
`Po. Box 9133
`CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
`
`RAMOS FELICIANO,ELISEO
`
`2687
`
`DATE MAILED: 05/05/2005
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024—00001
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`'
`
`10/341 ,528
`Examiner
`
`Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano
`
`GORSUCH, THOMAS E.
`A“ Unit
`
`2687 -
`
`’
`
`
`
`-- 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 3 MONTH(S) FROM
`THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`It 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.
`-
`It 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).
`
`In no event. however. may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status \
`
`HIE Responsive to communication(s) filed on 13 January 2003.
`
`2a)Ij This action is FINAL.
`
`2mm This action is non-final.
`
`3)Ij 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 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)[XI Claim(s)1—5_2is/are pending in the application.
`
`
`4a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)IXI Claim(s) 1 and 9-30 is/are allowed.
`
`6)IXI Claim(s) M is/are rejected.
`
`DIX] Claim(s) g1? is/are objected to.
`
`8)I:I Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`EDIE The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10M The drawing(s) filed on 13 January 2003 is/are: a)IX accepted or ml] 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)Ij Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`
`a)|:l All
`
`b)I:I Some * c)[] None of:
`
`LI] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2|] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`
`
`3.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.
`
`Attachmentis)
`
`1) IE Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) I] Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) X] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 1/24/2005.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. _-
`5) I] Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
`6) I] Other:
`.
`‘
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 1-04)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20050421
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00002
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341',528
`
`'
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`1.
`
`The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 24, 2005
`
`have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
`
`Specification
`
`2.
`
`The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference made
`
`to a US. Patent Application made on page 1, lines 4-5 needs to be updated to include current
`
`‘ status, e. g. patented and patent number. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`3.
`
`Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`the used reference
`
`signs, i.e. “(a)” to “(g)”, may lead to confusion with the steps recited in claim 1 given that these
`
`claims depend on claim 1, and claim 1 already recites “(a)” to “(e)” to make reference to such
`
`steps. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Double Patenting — Issue 1: US. Patent No. 6,526,034
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
`4.
`grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the‘unjustifled or
`improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible
`harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686
`F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA
`1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(e) may be used to
`overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground
`provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this
`application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal
`disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37
`CFR 3.73(b).
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00003
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`5.
`
`Claims 31-34, 37, and 39-47 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, 11-16, and 18 of
`
`US. Patent No. 6,526,034. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not
`
`patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
`
`Regarding claims 31-32 of present application, claim 1 of US. Patent No. 6,526,034
`
`discloses:
`
`For use with a digital communication network having a first wireless digital
`communication path and a second wireless digital communication path for coupling data
`communication signals with a local wireless transceiver at a firSt site, the second digital
`communication path providing wider coverage and a slower communication rate than the first
`digital communication path, the local wireless transceiver being operative to conduct wireless
`
`communications with a remote wireless transceiver at a second site, a method of selecting a
`wireless communication path comprising the steps of:
`a) in response to a request to establish a communication session between said first and
`second sites, determining whether the first wireless digital communication path is available;
`b) establishing a communication session between the first and second sites using the first
`wireless digital communication path if the first wireless digital communications path is available;
`c) establishing a communication session between the first and second sites using the
`second wireless digital communication path if the first wireless digital communication path is not
`available;
`(1) when a communication session has been established via the second wireless digital
`communication path, controlling the local wireless transceiver to appear to the second wireless
`digital communication path as though the bandwidth is continuously available during said
`communication session for wireless communications between said local and remote transceivers,
`irrespective of the need to transport data communication signals between said first and second
`sites; and
`e) when a communication session has been established via the second wireless
`communication path, in the absence of said need to transport data communication signals
`between said first and second sites, making said bandwidth available for wireless communication
`by another wireless transceiver of said digital communication network.
`
`Other than for some grammatical differences and selected omitted elements, claim 1 of
`
`US. Patent No. 6,526,034 claims the same as claims 31—32 of present application. Such
`
`differences are obvious expedient because omission of an element and its function in a
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00004
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`‘ Page4
`
`combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as .
`
`
`before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
`
`Regarding claims 33-34, 37, and 39 of present application, claim 1 of US. Patent No.
`
`6,526,034 discloses everything as applied above. In addition, claims 6—8 of US. Patent No.
`
`6,526,034 disclose the further added limitations.
`
`' Regarding claims 40-47 of present application, claim 1 of US. Patent No. 6,526,034
`
`discloses everything as applied above. In addition, claims 9, 11-16, and 18, respectively of US.
`
`Patent No. 6,526,034 disclose the fiirther added limitations.
`
`Double Patenting ’— Issue II: US Pat. Application No. 10/358,082
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rej ection’is based on a judicially created doctrine
`6.
`grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
`improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible
`harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`Cir. 1993);»In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686
`F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA
`1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to
`overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground
`provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this
`application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal
`disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37
`CFR 3.73(b).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 31-52 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 33-44, 4 6—48, 55-5 7, and
`
`60-61, of copending-Application No. 10/358,082 (US Patent Publication Number
`
`2004/0018854). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably
`
`distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00005
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`,
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claim 31-32 of present application, claim 33 'of copending Application No.
`
`10/358,082 discloses:
`
`A method for selecting a wireless data communication path from among at least a first
`wireless data communication path and a second wireless data communication path, the second
`wireless data communication path providing wider coverage and a slower communication rate
`than the first wireless data communication path, the method comprising the steps of:
`a) in response to a request to establish a data communication session, determining
`whether the first wireless data communication path is available;
`b) establishing a data communication session using the first wireless data communication
`path if the first wireless data communication path is available;
`c) establishing a data communication session using the second wireless data
`communication path if the first wireless data communication path is not available;
`(1) when a data communication session has been established via the available wireless
`data communication path, controlling a wireless transceiver to appear to the available wireless
`data communication path as though the bandwidth is continuously available during said
`communication session for wireless communications, irrespective of the need to transport data
`communication signals; and
`e) when a data communication session has been established via the available wireless
`data communication path, in the absence of said need to transport data communication "signals,
`making said bandwidth available for wireless data communication by another wireless
`transceiver of said communication network.
`
`Other than for some grammatical differences and selected omitted elements, claim 33 of
`
`copending Application No. 10/358,082 claims the same as claims 31-32 of present application.
`
`Such differences are obvious expedient because omission of an element and its function in a
`
`combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as
`
`
`before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
`
`Regarding claims 33-41 of present application, claim 33 of copending Application No.
`10/358,082 discloses everything as applied above. In addition, claims 34-42 of copending
`
`Application No. 10/341,528 disclose the further added limitations.
`
`Regarding claims 42-50 of present application, claim 33 of copending Application No.
`
`10/358,082 discloses everything as applied above. In addition, claims 55-5 7, 43-44, 46, 60, 4 7,
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00006
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 6
`
`and 48, respectively of copending Application No. 10/341,528 disclose the further added
`
`limitations.
`
`Regarding claims 51-52 of present application, claim 33 of copending Application No.
`
`10/358,082 discloses everything as applied above. In addition, claims 60-61 of copending
`
`Application No. 10/341,528 disclose the further added limitations.
`
`This is a provisional obviousness—type double patenting rejection because the conflicting
`claims have not in fact been patented.
`I
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 31, 33-52 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burke
`
`et a]. (US Patent Number 5,406,643) in view of the Admitted Prior Art (disclosed under
`
`“BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section, page 1, line 7 to page 3, line 18, of present
`
`application).
`
`Regarding claim 31, Burke et a1. discloses amethod for selecting a wireless
`communication path (abstract; 4, 6, 8 — Figure 1) from among at least a first wireless data
`
`communication path (e. g. 4) and a second wireless data communication path (e. g. 6), the second
`
`wireless data communication path providing Wider coverage and a slower communication rate
`
`than the first wireless data communication path, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00007
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/34 1 ,528
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`a) in response to a request to establish a communication session (connection command —
`
`step 84, Figure 7), determining whether the first wireless data communication path is available
`
`(step 86, Figure 7);
`
`b) establishing a communication session using the first wireless data communication path
`
`if the first wireless data communication path is available (step 88, Figure 7); and
`
`c) establishing a communication session using the second wireless data communication
`
`path if the first wireless data communication path is not available (steps 86 and 88, Figure 7).
`
`In detail, Burke et al. discloses that upon a connection command (request to establish a
`
`communication session) (step 84, Figure 7) an available wireless data communication path is
`
`selected (step 84, Figure 7). The selection of the available wireless data communication path is
`
`based on several factors or “communication criteria” that Burke et al. names “prototypes”; see
`
`column 7, lines 9-34.
`
`Burke et al. discloses that the so-called “prototype” (CCP) defines a “potential path” and
`
`includes a “STATUS FLAG”, inter alia, (column 5, lines 34-42). The status flag defines a “data
`
`link” that indicates the availability of a “physical path” (column 6, lines 7-21). In other words,
`
`the selection of the available wireless data communication path is based on whether or not “a
`
`first” path is available. If not available, “a second” available path is selected.
`
`Burke et al. further discloses that the so-called “prototype” (CCP) defines a “potential
`
`path” and includes a “ATTRLBUTE LIST”, inter alia, (column 5, lines 34-42). The attribute list
`
`describes the characteristics of a single actual communications path such as “baud rate” and
`
`“transit time” (columns, lines 58-65; column 12, lines 21-24 & 65-68). For that reason, the
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00008
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 8
`
`second wireless data communication path can be fairly characterized as providing a slower
`
`communication rate than the first wireless data communication path.
`
`However, Burke et a1. fails to specify that the second wireless data communication path
`
`provides a wider coverage than the first wireless data communication path.
`
`Nevertheless, Burke et al. discloses in alternative embodiment cellular technology (radio
`
`frequency) and wireless LAN (W-LAN) technology; column 1, lines 33-47, column 10, lines 49-
`
`60. The communication paths correspond to these technologies. It is of conventional knowledge
`
`that “W-LANs typically have a much smaller range and higher data rates” (see the Admitted
`
`Prior Art: page 3, lines 8-12) when compared to a cellular network (see the Admitted Prior Art:
`
`page 2, line 12 to page 3, line 7). It is also desirable to select the faster communication path when
`
`available.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention was made to make the second wireless data communication path to provide a wider
`
`coverage and a slower communication rate than the first wireless data communication path
`
`because it is desirable to be able toselect the faster communication path when available given
`
`that Burke et a1. already discloses cellular and W—LAN as explained above.
`
`Regarding claims 33-36 and 38-39, Burke et a1. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose
`
`everything claimed as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, either one of the wireless data
`
`communication paths can be cellular or wireless LAN as explained above; column 1, lines 33-47,
`
`column 10, lines 49-60.
`
`Regarding claim 37, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed
`
`as applied above (see claim 33). In addition, the combination discloses that the wireless LAN
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00009
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Page 9
`
`connection is implemented according to at least one IEEE 802.11 standard (see the Admitted
`
`Prior Art, page 3, lines 13-18).
`
`Regarding claim 40, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed
`
`as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, it is of conventional knowledge that access costs
`
`associated with cellular networks are higher than those of W—LANs (see the Admitted Prior Art,
`
`page 1, line 19 to page 2, line 2; and page 3, lines 20-24). Therefore, the combination discloses
`
`wherein access costs associated with the first wireless communication path (W-LAN) are smaller
`
`than access costs associated with the second wireless communication path (cellular). (See also
`
`column 7, lines 15-18 of Burke et al.).
`
`Regarding claim 41, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed
`
`as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, the combination discloses that access to the second
`
`wireless digital communication path (cellular) is subscription-based (“subscriber 2” — abstract of
`
`Burke et a1. — indicates subscription-based as claimed; in addition cellular networks typically are
`
`subscription-based for profit).
`
`Regarding claim 42, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed
`
`as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, determining whether the first wireless digital
`
`communication path (W-LAN) is available comprises detecting a beacon signal (see the
`
`Admitted Prior Art, page 14, lines 20-24 regarding IEEE 802.11 standard for W-LAN).
`
`Regarding claim 43, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed
`
`as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, the connection/communication command (step 84,
`
`Figure 7) explained above reads as the claimed “probe request message”, since it indicates
`
`availability of a “physical path” (see column 6, lines 7-21, and explanation for claim 31 above).
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00010
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Therefore, the cOmbination discloses transmitting a probe request message (120 — Figure 8 of
`
`Burke et al.), anddetecting a probe response message (150— Figure 80f Burke et al.) in reSponse
`
`to the probe request, as claimed.
`
`Regarding claim 44, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed-
`
`as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, determining whether the first wireless digital
`
`communication path is available comprises detecting activity in the first wireless communication
`
`path (physical path) (as explained for claim 31, the status flag defines a “data link” that indicates
`
`the activity of a “physical path”; column 6, lines 7-21).
`Regarding claim 45-46, Burke et a1. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything
`
`claimed as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, wireless LANs (first wireless digital
`
`communication path) are generally private networks because they are typically installed, owned,
`
`and maintained by a private party, such as a business, educational institution or home owner (see
`
`the Admitted Prior Art, page 3, lines 20-22). Cellular (long range).networks (second wireless
`
`digital communication path) are generally public networks because they utilize shared public
`
`access frequencies licensed by a government authority to complete a connection (see the
`
`Admitted Prior Art, page 3, lines 22-24).
`
`Regarding claim 47, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything claimed
`
`as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, carrier sense multiple access with collision
`
`avoidance (CSMA/CA) is part of the IEEE 802.11 specification (see the Admitted Prior Art,
`
`page 5, lines 5-6). Therefore, given that the first wireless digital communication path is W-LAN
`
`according to IEEE 802.11 specification (as explained in the paragraphs above), the first wireless
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00011
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`digital communication path uses carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance
`
`(CSMA/CA), as claimed.
`
`Regarding claim 48 and 51-52, Burke et al. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose
`
`everything claimed as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, the first wireless digital
`
`communication path conducts wireless communication with a wireless transceiver at a first site
`
`(for example, located at endpoint 10 — Figure 1 of Burke et al.). The second wireless digital
`
`communication path conducts wireless communication with a wireless transceiver at a second
`
`site (for example, endpoint 10). The'first wireless digital comfnunication path conducts wireless
`
`communication with a wireless transceiver at a first site and the second wireless digital
`
`communication path conducts wireless communication with a wireless transceiver also located at
`
`the first site (for example, located at endpoint 10 - Figure 1; see also abstract of Burke et al.).
`
`Regarding claims 49-50, Burkeet a1. and the Admitted Prior Art disclose everything
`
`claimed as applied above (see claim 31). In addition, as explained above for claim 31, the
`
`selection of the communication path is further based on “baud rate” / “transit time” (column 5,
`
`lines 58-65; column 12, lines 21-24 & 65—68 of Burke et al.). The highest communication rate is
`
`very desirable as well as the highest communication throughput with lowest bit error rate.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention was made that when more than one wireless communication path is available,
`
`selecting an available communication path having the highest communication rate, or the highest
`
`communication throughput with lowest bit. error rates because it is desirable for obtaining the
`
`best communications quality possible.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00012
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1 and 9-30 are allowed.
`
`Page 12
`
`11.
`
`Claim 32 is 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 and submission of the timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with
`
`37 CFR 1.321(c) explained above.
`
`12.
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
`
`Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious an
`
`apparatus for connecting a data communication interface to receive data comprising: (a) a first
`
`electronics circuit, for receiving data from the first wireless data communication path; (b) a
`
`second electronics circuit, for receiving data from the second wireless data communication path,
`
`I
`
`the second wireless data communication path providing wider coverage and a slower
`
`communication rate than the first wireless data communication path; (c) a detector, for
`
`determining if a selected one of the first wireless data communication path or the second wireless
`
`data communication path is not an available communication path, and for determining that the
`
`other one of the first wireless communication path or the second wireless communication path is
`
`an available communication path;
`
`((1) a switch, for connecting the available communication path
`
`to the data communication interface; and (e) a controller, for controlling the unavailable wireless
`
`communication path to appear as though bandwidth is continuously available to a
`
`communication session, even when it is actually not an available communication path, i_n
`
`combination as defined by applicant.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00013
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/341,528
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2687
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to
`13.
`Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano whose telephone number is 571-272-7925. The examiner can normally
`be reached from 8:00 am. to 5:30 pm. on 5-4/9 lst Friday Off.
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessfill, the examiner's
`supervisor, Lester G. Kincaid, can be reached on (571) 272-7922. The fax phone number for the
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
`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).
`
`BRIT/erf
`Apn122, 2005
`
`%%%—4/21/0;
`ELISEOmmucm
`PATENT EXAMINER
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00014
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`.— US-5,406.643 .
`In US-6,526,034
`.— US-2004/0018854
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`04—1995
`02-2003
`01-2004
`
`Burke etal.
`Gorsuch. Thomas E.
`Gorsuch, Thomas E.
`
`
`Classification
`
`
`370/349
`
`
`
`370/338
`
`
`370/338
`
`
`Notice of References Cited Examiner
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`10/341528
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`GORSUCH, THOMAS E.
`
`Art Unit
`2687
`
`Page1°f1
`
`Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`cccccccccc
`
`
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
`
`'A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
`us Patent and Trademrk Office
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`-
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 20050421
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00015
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`PTO-1449 REPRODUCED
`
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`
`IN AN APPLICATION
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`2479.1053-007
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`10/341,528
`
`FILING DATE
`
`Shcct I of]
`
`Thomas E. Gorsuch
`January 13, 2003
`
`January 13, 2005
`EXAMINER
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`GROUP
`
`
`Not assigned
`7 146
`,
`
`“2682‘
`268'?
`
`S
`
`r
`
`US. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`:.-.
`
`..
`
`'
`
`. .fDOCUMENT NUMBER
`umber-Kind Code (if known)
`
`‘
`
`ISSUE DATE I
`MM-DD—YYYY
`
`NAME OF PATENTEE
`
`Phillips et al.
`
`Pireh
`
`Mizikovsky
`
`Burke et al.
`
`Yamada et al.
`
`Mahany
`
`Harrison et al.
`
`Pinard et al.
`
`Schellinger et al.
`-
`IMMIIIIII
`
`08-12-1997
`
`07-04—2000
`
`05-22-2001
`
`Mahany, et al.
`
`Dorenbosch, et al.
`
`Shaffer, et al.
`
`
`
`HI
`'
`
`//
`
`5,657,317
`
`6,084,866
`
`6,236,642 B1
`Amlllllllll
`
`Ou
`
`
`
`
`
`
` OF CITED DOCUMENT
`Ema-lllllwmw
`\é;
`A
`Ewlllllllwmw
`ss
`5,228,074
`07-13-1993 '
`awn-Illllwmm
`fiwflllllllwmm
`flfiflllllllwmw
`mflMflllllllhwms
`fiflflllllllwmm
`5,842,122
`1 1-24-1998
`amm
`1mm,
`
`A
`
`’
`
`\\ \Hfiflfiflfi
`insosan
`IflflfiIfifififli
`Ififififififififififi
`
`
`
`@PFDcsktopVflDMA/MHODMAlHBSROSijgcfiZS"I l;l
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00016
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`
`Fro-1449 REPRODUCED
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`2479.1053-007
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`10/341, 528
`
`FILING DATE
`
`IN AN APPLICATION
`
`January 13, 2005
`
`Thomas E. Gorsuch
`EXAMINER
`
`January 13,2003
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`Sheet 2 of3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Usc several sheets if necessary)
`
`
`
`Not assigned
`
`
`7146
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`DOCUMENT NUMBER
`
`
`NAME OF PATENTEE OR APPLICANT
`
`TRANSLATION
`Country Code-Numbcr-Kind Code
`
`OF CITED DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`NO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E
`
`E
`
`I’-
`
`E E
`
`l2
`
`3..OW
`
`
`
` 9Ifififififi
`
`
`
`EXAMINER WW DATE CONSIDERED
`mamman 4/
`@PFDcsktopVODMAIMHODMA/HBSR05;iManage;52$4l l;l
`
`7/149;
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00017
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`

`PTO—1449 REPRODUCED
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`2479.1053-007
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`10/341,528
`
`Sheet 3 of3
`
`
`
`
`FILING DATE
`
`January 13, 2003
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`GROUP
`
`
`
`
`7146
`£68?
`
`ZC 87
`
`OTHER DOCUMENTS (Including Author, Title, Date, Pertinent Pages, Etc.)
`
`
` “IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Standard,” The MAC Layer, pp. 1-2, downloaded 7/15/99 fiom
`http://www.wlana.com/intro/standard/mac.html.
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`IN AN APPLICATION
`
`
`
`" ' January 13. 2005
`
`FlRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`Thomas E. Gorsuch
`EXAMINER
`
`Not assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Grube, G., et al., “In-Building Wireless Coverage Using a Second Mode”, Motorola XP 000594558, pp.
`66-68 (May 1996).
`
`
`
`
`
`DATE CONS I DERED
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`Exhibit 1024-00018
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`

`