`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Adda-m: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`Po. Box I430
`.
`Alcnndril. Virginia 2231341150
`wwasplmgov
`
`90ml 0,422
`
`02126:“2009
`
`6.009,469
`
`'
`
`2655-0I 85
`
`6565
`
`mmmvm
`
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`4300 WILSON BLVD, TTH FLOOR
`_ARL[NGTON, VA 22203
`
`ARTUNIT
`
`PAPERNUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: OSIIDJ'ZDIG
`
`Please find below andfor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 30303)
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1026
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1026
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`'1» ._.__...__.__.___—___._.._.__.
`
`~
`
`
`
`
`'35“
`‘{
`..
`
`Omissioner tor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Po. eoxuso
`Alexandria, VA 2231 3.1450
`muscle.”
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER’S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR 8r ZAFMAN LLP
`1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
`
`MLED
`1 n
`
`MAY
`
`201"
`
`SUNNWALE- CA 94035-4040
`
`can-rm Reamrmmou uurr
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITI'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/010 422.
`
`PATENT NO. 6 009 469.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(0).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`--' The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`Control No.
`90/010,422
`
`Examlner
`ALEXANDER J. KOSOWSKI
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6.009.469
`
`
`
`b8 This action is made FINAL
`am Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 2; November 2009 .
`CD A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`
`
`9°."S7‘.‘":“.‘"!°
`
`Claims
`
`have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims 1-3 5 and 6 are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 5-9.14-18 are rejected.
`
`
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire g month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination ot the proceeding and issuance of an ex pane reexamination
`
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 OF R 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum oi thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
` Part |
`
`
`
`1.
`[:1 Notice of References Cited by Examiner. PTO-892.
`3. D Interview Summary. PTO-474.
`
`2.
`[Z]
`Information Disclosure Statement. PTO/$8108.
`4. E]
`.
`
` Part II
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`1a.
`
`Claims 1-§. 5. 6. 8.9 and 14-18 are subject to reexamination.
`
`1b.
`Claims 4 7 and 10.13 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` DDIZIZDIZIZI The drawings. filed on _are acceptable.
`
`Claims
`
`are objected to.
`
`C] The proposed drawing correction, filed on J5 been (73)
`
`[:1 approved (7b)D disapproved.
`
`D Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (i).
`
`a)l:] All b)l:] Some“ c)l:l None
`
`01 the certified copies have
`
`11:] been received.
`
`2:] not been received.
`
`at] been filed in Application No. __
`
`4D been filed in reexamination Control No. _
`
`5E] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No. _._
`
`' See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`9. C] Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters. prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle. 1935 CD.
`11. 453 0.6. 213.
`
`10. El Other:
`
`
`
`cc: Rc- ucster
`iI'third
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Otttce Action In Ex Part0 Reexamination
`Part ol Paper No. 20100506
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1)
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 14-18 of United States Patent Number
`
`6,009,469 (Mattaway et al), for which it has been determined in the Order Granting Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination (hereafter the “Order”) mailed 3/13/09 that a substantial new question of
`
`patentability was raised in the Request for Ex Pane reexamination filed on 2/26/09 (hereafter the
`
`“Request”). Claims 4, 7, 10-13 are not subject to reexamination. This is a final office action in
`
`response to the amendment filed I 1/25/09. The rejection of claims 8, 9, 14-18 are maintained
`
`below. Amended claims 1-3 and 5-6 are allowable and/or confirmed below.
`
`IDS
`
`2)
`
`With regard to the lDS’s filed 12/14/09, 12/16/09, 1/26/10, 2/24/10, 3/5/10, 5/6/10:
`
`Where the IDS citations are submitted but not described, the examiner is only responsible for
`cursorily reviewing the references. The initials of the examiner on the PTO-1449 indicate only
`that degree of review unless the reference is either applied against the claims, or discussed by the
`examiner as pertinent art ofinterest, in a subsequent office action. See Guidelines for
`Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 1 10 F.3d 786, 42 USPQ2d
`1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 FR at 15347, 1223 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 125 (response to comment
`6).
`
`Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the
`examiner will consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search
`
`files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of
`search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO-1449 or
`PTO/SB/08A and 088 or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the
`examiner to the extent noted above
`
`Regarding IDS submissions MPEP 2256 recites the following. "Where patents,
`publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a party (patent owner or
`requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration
`to be given to such information will be normally limited by the degree to which the party filing
`the information citation has explained the content and relevance of the information."
`Accordingly, the IDS submissions have been considered by the Examiner only with the
`scope required by MPEP 2256, unless otherwise noted.
`
`In addition, that which are not either prior art patents or prior art printed publications
`have been crossed out so as not to appear reprinted on the front page of the patent.
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`ApplicationiControl Number: 90r'010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejection Paragraphs
`
`3)
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1'03
`
`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 l02 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.
`
`Issue 1
`
`4)
`
`Claims 8-9, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as beingunpatentable
`
`by NetBIOS, further in view of Pinard.
`
`Referring to (Claim 8), NetBIOS teaches in a computer system having a display and
`
`capable of executing a process, a method for establishing a point-to-point communication from a
`
`caller process to a callee process over a computer network, the caller process capable of
`
`generating a user interface and being Operatively connected to the callee process and a server
`
`process over the computer network (NetBlOSApg. 356; 35?; wherebxthe system is run on
`
`personal computers over TCPiIP networks, personal computers inherently containing a display),
`
`the method comprising the steps of: querying the server process to determine if the first callee
`
`process is accessible (NetBIOS, pg. 377, 388-389, 446, whereby a query is sent to the NBNS to
`
`determine if another node is logged in and discover the nodes 1? address); and establishing a
`
`
`point-to-point communication link from the caller process to the first callee process (thBIOS
`
`pg. 397-400, whereby a point-point communication link is established between end nodes}.
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`However, NetBlOS does not explicitly teach generating a user-interface element
`
`representing a first communicatipp line, generating a user interface element representing a first
`
`callee process, and establishing the link in response to a user associating the element
`
`representing the first callee process with the element representing the first communication line
`
`Pinard teaches a human machine interface for telephone feature invocation which is
`
`utilized on a personal computer and allows a user to make telephone calls by moving graphics
`
`around a screen. Pinard teaches a user interface element representing a first communication line
`
`and callee prpggss tEipard, Figure 6 and col. 5 lines 23—30), app also teaches clicking and
`
`dragging an icon representing a callee from a directory into a call setup icon to establish a call
`
`link (Pinard, Figure 3, col. 4 lines 38'51, Figure 6, col. 5 lines 36-37).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilizing the user-interface elements and interactions taught by Pinard in the
`
`invention taught by NetBlOS since Pinard teaches that the invention can be used with any
`
`system in which a personal computer in conjunction with a server operates (Pinard, col. 2 lines
`
`43-46), since NetBlOS teaches that it can be implemented using different operating systems
`
`(fletBlOS, pg. 359), and since examiner notes that both NetBlOS and Pinard relate to
`
`communications between at least two users implemented in a computerized environment.
`
`Referring to (Claim 9), NetBlOS teaches the method of claim 8 wherein step C further
`
`comprises the steps of: querying the server process as to the on-line status of the first callee
`
`process (NetBlOS, pg. 377, 388-389, 446, 393-394, whereby name Queries are used to discover
`
`if a node is connected and active); and receiving a network protocol address of the first callee
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`process over the computer network from the server process (NetBlOS, pg. 389, 440, 464-465,
`
`w r
`
`eNBN answers
`
`u rie withali
`
`f IP addre
`
`connected nodes).
`
`Referring to (Claims 14-15 and 17-18), NetBlOS teaches the above. However, NetBlOS
`does not explicitly teach generating a user interface element representing a communication line
`
`having a temporarily disabled status; and temporarily disabling the point-to-point communication
`
`between the caller process and the first callee process, in response to the user associating the
`
`element representing the first callee process with the element representing the communication
`
`line having a temporarily disabled status, wherein the element generated represents a
`
`communication line on hold status, wherein the display further comprises a visual display, and
`
`wherein the user interface is a graphic user interface and the user-interface elements generated in
`
`steps A and B are graphic elements.
`
`Pinard teaches a “hard hold" icon to which saller/callees may be dragged to be put on
`
`hold status (Pinard, Figure l2, col. 6 lines 36-53 ), teaches a visual display (Pinard, col. 4 lines
`
`10-1 1, Figure 2), and teaches a graphical user interface in which the elements are graphic
`
`elements {Pinardl Figures 2-16).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilizing the user-interface elements and interactions taught by Pinard in the
`
`invention taught by NetBlOS since Pinard teaches that the invention can be used with any
`
`system in which a [grsonal computer in conjunction with a server operates (Pinard, col. 2 lines
`
`43-46), since NetBlOS teaches that it can be implemented using different operating systems
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90i010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`jfletBlOS, pg. 3591, and since examiner notes that both NetBlOS and Pinard relate to
`
`communications between at least two users implemented in a computerized environment.
`
`.5)
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by NetBIOS, further in
`
`view of Pinard, further in view of VocalChat User’s Guide.
`
`Referring to (Claim 16), NetBIOS teaches the above. However, NetBlOS does not
`
`explicitly teach wherein the element generated represents a communication line on mute status.
`
`VocalChat User’s Guide teaches the use of a MUTE option on a phone so that a user can
`
`talk without being heard by the other user’s system {Vocal‘Chat User’s Guide, pg. 5?}.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize an element representing a communication line on MUTE status in the
`
`invention taught by NetBlOS and Pinard above since all three references relate to the field of
`
`
`communications over a computer network, since VocalChat and Pinard utilize a computer
`
`system for telephony features specifically, and since examiner notes that the use of a MUTE
`
`feature in telephone conversations is old and well known in the art.
`
`6)
`
`Examiner notes the following will represent the Etherphone references utilized for the
`
`Issue 2
`
`rejection below (All considered a single reference as published together):
`
`”Zeit'weger”: An Overview of the Etherphone System and its Applications
`
`“Swineharr”: Teiephone Management in the Etherphone System
`
`“Terry Managing Stored Voice in the Etherphone System
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`7)
`
`Claims 8-9, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`by Etherphone, further in view of Pinard.
`
`Referring to (Claim 8), Etherphone teaches in a computer system having a display and
`
`capable of executing a process, a method for establishing a point-to-point communication from a
`
`caller process to a callee process over a computer network, the caller process capable of
`
`generating a user interface and being operatively connected to the callee process and a sewer
`
`process over the computer network (Zellweger, pg. 1, 3, Figure l, Swinehart Figpggs 1-10), the
`
`method comprising the steps of: querying the server process to determine if the first callee
`
`process is accessible (Swinehart, pg. 2, _4, Zellweger, pg. 5, whereby a guergy is transmitted to
`
`determine the location of a second Ethemhone by contacting a server); and establishing a point-
`
`to-point communication link from the caller~process to the first callee process (Swinehart, pg. 2,
`
`Zellweger, Figure 4, whereby voice datagrams-are transmitted directly among participants).
`
`Howpver, Etheigphone does not explicitly teach generating a user-interface element
`
`representing a first communication line, generating a user interface element representing a first
`
`callee process, and establishing the link in response to a user associating the element
`
`representing the first callee process with the element representing the first communication line
`
`Pinard teaches a human machine interface for telephone feature invocation which is
`
`utilized on a personal computer and allows a user to make telephone calls by moving graphics
`
`around a screen. Pinard teaches a user interface element representing a first communication line
`
`and callee process (Pinard, Figure 6 and col. 5 lines 23-30), and also teaches clicking and
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`dragging an icon representing a callee from a directogy into a call setup icon to establish a call
`
`link (Pinard, Figure 3, col. 4 lines 38-51, Figure 6, col. 5 lines 36-37}.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilizing the user-interface elements and interactions taught by Pinard in the
`
`invention taught by Ethegphone since Pinard teaches that the invention can be used with any
`
`system in which a personal computer in conjunction with a server omratcs (Pinard, col. 2 lines
`
`43-46), and since examiner notes that both Ethegphone and Pinard relate to communications
`
`between at least two users implemented in a computerized environment.
`
`Referring to (Claim 9), Etherphone teaches the method of claim 8 wherein step C further
`
`comprises the steps of: querying the server process as to the on-line status of the first callee
`
`process (Swinehartl pg. 2, 4, ZellwegerI pg. 5, whereby gueries are transmitted to Voice Control
`
`ngg); and receiving a network protocol address of the first callee process over the computer
`
`network from the server process (Swinehart, pg. 2, whereby the server sends the network
`
`protocol address of the logged in user to caller process on reguest).
`
`Referring to (Claims 14-15), Etherphone teaches the above. However, Etherphone does
`
`not explicitly teach generating a user interface element representing a communication line having
`
`a temporarily disabled status; and temporarily disabling the point-to-point communication
`
`between the caller process and the first callee process, in response to the user associating the
`
`element representing the first callee process with the element representing the communication
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`’
`
`'
`
`Page 9
`
`line having a temporarily disabled status, and wherein the element generated represents a
`
`communication line on hold status.
`
`Pinard teaches a “hard hold” icon to which saller/callees may be dragged to be put on
`
`hold status (Pinard, Figure 12, col. 6 lines 36—53 1.
`
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilizing the user-interface elements and interactions taught by Pinard in the
`
`invention taught by Ethemhone since Pinard teaches that the invention can be used with any
`
`system in which a personal computer in conjunction with a server operates (Pinard, col. 2 lines
`
`43-46), and since examiner notes that both Ethegphone and Pinard relate to communications
`
`between at least two users implemented in a computerized environment.
`
`Referring to (Claims 17-18), Etherphone teaches_wherein the display further comprises a
`
`visual display (Swinehart, Fig. 1-10, Zellweger, Fig. 3-4, whereby computer displays are
`
`considered visual displays), and wherein the user interface is a graphic user interface and the
`
`user-interface elements generated in steps A and B are graphic elements (Swinehart, Fig. 1-10,
`
`chlweger, Fig. 3-4, whereby a GUI is used showing graphic elements of call display).
`
`8)
`
`Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Etherphone, further
`
`in view of Pinard, further in view of VocalChat User’s Guide.
`
`Referring to (Claim 16), Etherphone teaches the above. However, Etherphone does not
`
`explicitly teach wherein the element generated represents a communication line on mute status.
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`VocalChat User’s Guide teaches the use of a MUTE option on a phone so that a user can
`
`talk without being heard by the other pser’s system (VocalChat User’s Guide, pg. 57).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to utilize an element representing a communication line on MUTE status in the
`
`invention taught by Etherphone and Pinard above since all three references relate to the field of
`
`communications over a computer network, since VocalChat and Pinard utilize a computer
`
`system for telephony features specifically, and since examiner notes that the use of a MUTE
`
`feature in telephone conversations is old and well known in the art.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`9)
`
`In response to the amendment filed 1 1/25/09, some rejections are sustained as noted
`
`above, and others have been withdrawn. The following aspects of the current prosecution will be
`
`addressed as noted below:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`VocalChat are not printed publications.
`
`The 1.132 Declaration
`
`Objective evidence of non-obviousncss
`
`Withdrawn rejections
`
`Maintained rejections
`
`a)
`
`The amendment submitted ll/25/09 includes arguments that the VocalChat references
`
`are not printed publications. The Patent Owner (PO) cites exhibit L of the Request (the
`
`declaration of Alon Cohen) as the only evidence provided by P0 that the VocalChat references
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`Applieation/Control Number: 90/0l0,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 1 1
`
`are printed publications. Examiner notes that the Alon Cohen declaration fails to comply with 37
`
`C.F.R. 1.68, including not setting forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of
`
`the declarant's own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true. Therefore, PO’s arguments questioning the declaration as well as
`
`whether printed publication status has been established as set forth under statute are found
`
`persuasive. Examiner therefore withdraws all rejections utilizing the VocalChat references.
`
`b)
`
`Examiner notes that all evidence presented has been considered in its entirety, including
`
`both PO’s arguments, including secondary considerations, as well as the 1.132 Declaration
`
`submitted by expert Ketan Mayer-Patel.
`
`c)
`
`Examiner notes that PO’s arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness,
`
`including commercial success and failure of others have been considered, however no nexus has
`
`been provided between the claimed invention and the submitted evidence as required by at least
`
`MPEP 716.03. Therefore, this evidence is not found persuasive.
`
`d)
`
`In light of PO’s arguments and amendments filed 1 1/25/09, as well as the declaration of
`
`expert Mayer-Patel, examiner withdraws the rejections of claims l-3 and 5-6. Examiner finds
`
`the presented arguments to be persuasive.
`
`With regard to the NetBios rejection, examiner agrees with declarant Mayer-Patel that
`
`bringing dynamic addressing into a NetBlOS type system would create a new set of obstacles
`
`that would need to be solved that are not obvious in view of the combination of references.
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 901010322
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`With regard to the rejection under Etherphone, examiner notes that a similar argument
`
`applies to Etherphone as to Netbios, namely that combining the system with dynamic addressing
`
`would create new, non obvious obstacles to overcome.
`
`A reasons for confirmation for the claims discussed above will follow in a subsequent
`
`office action.
`
`e)
`
`The rejection of claims 8, 9, 14-18 are maintained in view of NetBIOS and Etherphone.
`
`With regard to the rejection of claim 8 under NetBIOS, maintained above:
`
`Examiner first notes that claim 8 does not require any dynamic addressing limitations,
`
`unlike claims 1 and 5. Therefore, any arguments directed towards a combination with RFC 1531
`
`do not apply to claim 8.
`
`PO argues with regard to claim 8 that NetBIOS does not teach “determining if the first
`
`callee process is accessible”. P0 argues that having an “active name” is not synonymous with
`
`“determining if a first callee process is accessible", and that an “active name" simply refers to “a
`
`name that has been registered and that has not yet been de-registered". Examiner first notes that
`
`the term “accessible” is not specifically defined in PO’s specification. Therefore, under a
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation could simply mean that a user is registered with '
`
`the system.
`
`In addition, examiner notes that PO's specification at col. 5 lines 39—44 teaches that
`
`the on-line status information may not always be current, and may be updated, for example, only
`
`every 24 hours based on operator configuration. Assuming a user being “accessible” is
`
`comparable to that user being “on-line”, then the database of NetBIOS which contains active
`
`name information reads on claim 8, whether or not the user data is current.
`
`Page 14 0f17
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`-
`
`Page 13
`
`PO also argues that NetBlOS does not teach “that the active status of a name in the
`
`NetBlOS server is an indication of the active status of the owner of that name”. However,
`
`examiner notes that claim 8 only requires connecting to a callee process, not necessarily to a
`
`particular name.
`
`With regard to the rejection under Etherphone, maintained above:
`
`PO argues with regard to claim 8 that if the Etherphone are “participants”, then “there is
`
`no indication that the combination meets the limitation of ‘the caller process capable of
`
`generating a user interface”. Examiner notes that PO appears to be arguing that the Etherphones
`
`are not capable of generating user interfaces by themselves. If this is the case, examiner points
`
`to Zellweger, page 2. Zellweger teaches that workstations work in combination with the
`
`Etherphones and provided the enhanced user interface functionality. The Etherphones are only
`
`used separately to split up voice-processing functionality due to hardware processing
`
`requirements. Therefore, the caller process is a function of the workstation in combination with
`
`the Etherphone.
`
`Therefore, the current arguments regarding claims 8-9 and 14-18 are not persuasive, and
`
`the rejections above are maintained.
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90l010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a)do not apply in reexamination
`
`proceedings. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Further, in 35 U.S.C. 305 and in 37 CFR 1.550(a), it is required that
`
`reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch within the Office."
`
`Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR
`
`15500:). A request for extension of time must be filed on or before the day on which a response
`
`to this action is due, and it must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR i.l7(g).
`
`The mere filing of a request will not effect any extension of time. An extension of time will be
`
`granted only for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable time specified.
`
`The filing ofa timely first response to this final rejection will be construed as including a
`
`request to extend the shortened statutory period for an additional month, which will be granted
`
`even if previous extensions have been granted.
`
`In no event however, will the statutory period for
`
`response expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final action. See MPEP §
`
`2265.
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex pane reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`as follows:
`
`By US. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/010,422
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Al IN: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`'
`PO. Box I450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 223l4
`
`By EFS~Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`httpsz/lsportal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalepf.html
`
`BFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are “soft scanned” (i.e.,
`electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
`offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the “soft scanning"
`process is complete.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be
`
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571)272-7705.
`
`/Alexander J Kosowski/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`4&—
`
`Page 17 of 17
`
`