N THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Application of:
`
`Pulsipher, et al.
`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`
`Filed: October 31, 2000
`
`Confirmation No.: 4047
`
`Group Art Unit: 2664
`
`Examiner: Ho, Chuong T.
`
`HP Docket No. 10008102-1
`
`TKHR Docket No. 050836-1530
`
`For: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING AND
`PROCESSING CHANGES TO A NETWORK TOPOLOGY
`
`ARESPONSE TO FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Mail Stop: RCE
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`The outstanding final Office Action mailed February 23, 2005 (Part of Paper No. 9)
`
`has been carefully considered. In response thereto, please enter the following amendments in
`
`which claims 1-2, 5-9 and 15-20 are amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are now pending in the
`
`present application. Reconsideration and allowance of the application and presently pending
`
`claims, as amended, are respectfully requested.
`
`A UTHORIZA TION T0 DEBIT A CCOUNT
`
`It is believed that no extensions of time or fees for net addition of claims are required,
`beyond those which may otherwise be provided for in documents accompanying this paper.
`
`However, in the event that additional extensions of time are necessary to allow consideration of
`
`this paper, such extensions are hereby petitioned under 37 C.F.R. § 1.1-36(a), and any fees
`
`required therefor (including fees for net addition of claims) are hereby authorized to be charged
`
`to deposit account no. 08-2025,.
`
`1
`
`1
`
`I
`
`ServiceNow v. HP
`
`IPR20 1 5 -007 17
`
`HP 2002
`
`

`
`Serial No.2 O9/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION .
`
`In accordance with 37 U.S.C. 1.114, a Request For Continued Examination (RCE) is
`
`filed concurrently with this Response To The Final Office Action so that the Office Action
`
`dated February 23, 2005 (Part of Paper No. _9) is effectively made non—final. Under 37 U.S.C.
`
`1.114, the effect of the RCE, which makes the instant Office Action non-final, is to cause
`
`examination of the instant application to remain open. Accordingly, amendments submitted
`
`herein are to be entered as a matter of right, and each claim is entitled to continued-
`
`examination,
`
`particularly
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to
`
`the
`
`responses
`
`provided
`
`herein.
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`AMENDMENTS T0 THE CLAIMS
`
`Please amend the claims as indicated hereafter.
`
`[Use strikethreugh for deleted
`
`matter (or double square brackets “[[]]” if the strikethrough is not easily perceivable,
`
`i. e., “4” or apunctuation mark) and underlined for added matter.]
`
`1.
`
`(Currently amended)
`
`In a network having interconnected nodes with
`
`data tuples that represent nodal connections, a method for mapping a network
`
`topology by identifying changes between an existing topology and a new topology, the
`
`method comprising:
`
`creating a list of existing tuples from an existing topology representing nodal
`
`connections of a network at a prior time;
`i
`creating a new list of a plurality of tuples for a topology of [[a]] E network Q
`
`a current time, wherein the new list of tuples represent nodal connections of the
`
`
`network at the current time and wherein each of the tuples comprises a host identifier,
`
`interface information, and a port specification;
`
`receiving new tuples it that represent new nodal connections; and
`
`comparing the list of existing tuples with the new tuples @ to identify
`
`changes to the topology.
`
`2.
`
`(Currently amended) The method of claim 1, filrther comprising
`
`updating a topology database with a new topology corresponding to the list of existing
`
`tuples modified by the changes to the topology.
`
`3.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising taking action on
`
`the changes to the topology.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`(Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the step of
`
`comparing creating a new list of tuples comprises identifying duplicate tuples that
`
`appear both in the list of existing tuples and in the new tuples, and maintaining a
`
`current status of the topology for these tuples.
`
`

`
`6.
`
`(Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the step of
`
`eomparing creating a new list of tuples comprises identifying a swapped port
`
`condition on a connector.
`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`7.
`
`(Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the step of
`
`eomparing creating a new list of tuples comprises searching for a host of a new singly-
`
`heard host link tuple or a new multi-heard host link tuple in the list of existing tuples.
`
`8.
`
`(Currently amended) A system for mapping a network topology by
`
`identifying changes between an existing topology and a new topology, based on
`
`changes to data tuples that represent nodal connections comprising:
`
`a topology database that stores an existing topology of a network using tuples,
`
`wherein each tuple includes a host
`
`identifier,
`
`interface information, and a port
`
`specification for a node in the network from the existing topology representing nodal
`
`connections of the network at a prior time; and
`
`a topology converter connected to the topology database the receives new
`
`tuples that represent new nodal connections for a topology of the network at a current
`time, and compareg the new tuples with‘ the existing topology existing tuples to
`
`identify changes in the network by comparing the host identifiers,
`
`the interface
`
`information, and the port specifications, and determines differences between the new
`
`tuples with the existing tuples representing nodal connections of the network at the
`
`prior time.
`
`9.
`
`‘(Currently amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the "topology
`
`converter creates the new tuples for the topology of the network.
`
`10.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the topology converter
`
`updates the topology database with a new topology based on the new tuples.
`
`11.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the topology converter
`
`attempts to identify swapped ports on connectors.
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`12.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the topology converter
`
`identifies duplicate tuples that appear both in the list. of existing tuples and in the new
`
`tuples, and maintains a current status of the topology for these tuples.
`
`13.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the topology converter
`
`searches for a host of a new singly-heard host link tuple or a new multi—heard host link
`
`tuple in the list of existing tuples.
`
`14.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 8, wherein the topology converter
`
`searches for a connector of a new conflict "links tuple in the list of existing tuples.
`
`15.
`
`(Currently amended) A computer-readable medium having computer-
`
`executable instructions for performing a method for mapping a network topology by
`
`identifying changes [between an existing topology and a new topology in a network
`
`having a interconnected nodes, the method comprising:
`
`creating a list of existing tuples from an existing topology representing_nodal
`connections of a network at a prior time;
`
`creating a new list of a plurality of tuples for a topology of [[a]] th_e network Q
`a current time, wherein the new list of tuples represent nodal connections of the
`
`network at the current time and wherein each of the tuples comprises a host identifier,
`
`interface information, and a port specification;
`receiving new tuples fis_t that represent new nodal connections;
`comparing the list of existing tuples with the new tuples li_st
`
`to identify
`
`changes to the topology; and
`
`updating a topology database with a new topology based on the comparing.
`
`16.
`
`(Currently amended) The medium of claim 15, wherein a topology
`
`converter receives the new tuples fi_s_t from a connection calculator that calculates
`
`connections between nodes.
`
`17.
`
`(Currently amended) The medium of claim 15, wherein the step of
`
`eemparing creating the new tuples list comprises identifying duplicate tuples that
`
`jzmnngq-wW‘WWHWW
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`appear both in the list of existing tuples and in the new tuples list, and maintaining a
`
`current status of the topology for these duplicate tuples.
`
`18.
`
`(Currently amended) The medium of claim 15, wherein the step of
`
`eemparing creating the new tuples list comprises identifying a swapped port condition
`on a connector.
`
`19.
`
`(Currently amended) The medium of claim 15, wherein the step of
`
`eemparing creating the new tuples list comprises searching for a host of a new singly-
`
`heard host link tuple or a new multi-heard link tuple in the list of existing tuples.
`
`20.
`
`(Currently amended) The medium of claim 15, wherein the steps of
`
`eemparing creating the new tug" les list comprises searching for a connector of a new
`
`conflict links tuple in the list of existing tuples.
`
`A
`
`
`
`»m‘>1'v-wring‘»r: w
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`REMARKS
`
`This is a full and timely response to the outstanding final Office Action mailed
`
`February 23, 2005. Reconsideration and allowance of the application and presently
`
`pending claims 1-3 and 5-20, as amended, are respectfully requested.
`
`1.
`
`Present Status of Patent Application
`
`Upon entry of the amendments in this response, claims 1-3 and 5-20 remain
`
`pending in the present application. More specifically, claims 1-2, 5-9 and 15-20 are
`
`directly amended. These amendments are specifically described hereinafter.
`
`It is
`
`believed that the foregoing amendments and additions add no new matter to the
`
`present application.
`
`In accordance with 37 U.S.C. 1.114, a Request For Continued Examination is
`
`filed concurrently with this Response To The Final Office Action so that the Office
`
`Action mailed October 26, 2000 (Paper No. 8) is effectively made non-final.
`
`2.
`
`Res onse to Re'ection of Claims 1-3 and 5-20 Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103
`
`In the Office Action, claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`(U.S.. Patent 5,732,086),
`§103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable over Liang et al.
`hereinafier Liang, in view of Wood (US. Patent 6,405,248). It is well-established at law
`
`that, for a proper rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious based upon
`
`a combination of references, the cited combination of references must disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest, either implicitly or explicitly, all elements/features/steps of the claim at issue.
`
`See, e.g., In Re Dow Chemical, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and In re
`
`Keller, 208 U.S.P.Q.2d 871, 881 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as amended,
`
`are allowable for at least the reason that the proposed combination of Liang in View of
`(6
`
`Wood does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the feature of
`
`creating a list of
`
`existing tuples from an existing topology representing nodal connections of a network
`
`at a prior time” as recited in claims 1 and 15.
`
`Similarly, the proposed combination of
`
`Liang in View of Wood does not disclose,
`
`teach, or suggest at
`
`least a feature that
`
`L",‘l,!WK"‘vWIgg1rniw-wx
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`“determines differences between the new tuples with the existing tuples representing
`
`nodal connections of the network at the prior time” as recited in claim 8.
`
`Liang is apparently limited to, at most, a system where “the originating node
`
`constructs and stores a topology table entry which includes data from received ACK
`
`messages.” (Abstract). That is, Liang is limited to generating the network topology at a
`
`current time. Thus, Liang fails to disclose,
`
`teach or suggest every element of the
`
`Applicants’ claimed invention.
`
`Wood also fails to disclose, teach or suggest at least the above recited features of
`
`independent claims 1, 8 and 15. As alleged -in the Office Action, Wood is limited to
`
`teaching, at most, “creating an accurate topology map of a given network by: obtaining a
`
`list of managed network device; identifying link port and node port
`
`device interface
`
`information (see abstract)” (Office Action at page4 ). Thus, Wood fails to disclose,
`
`teach or suggest every element of the Applicants’ claimed invention.
`
`Accordingly, the proposed combination of Liang in view of Wood does not teach
`
`at least the claimed limitations of “creating a list of existing tuples from an existing
`
`topology representing nodal connections of a network at a prior time” as recited in
`
`claims 1 and 15, or a feature that “determines differences between the new tuples with
`
`the existing tuples representing nodal connections of the network at the prior time” as
`
`recited in claim 8. Therefore, a prima facie case establishing an obviousness rejection
`
`by Liang in View of Wood has not been made. Thus, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not
`obvious under proposed combination of Liang in View of Wood, and the rejection
`
`should be withdrawn.
`
`Because independent claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record, dependent
`
`claims 2-3 and 5-7 (which depend from independent claim 1) are allowable as a matter
`
`of law for at least the reason that dependent claims 2-3 and 5-7 contain all limitations of
`
`independent claim 1. Similarly, because independent claims 8 and 15 are allowable over
`
`the cited art of record, claims 9-14 and 16-20 (which depend fi'om independent claims 8
`
`and 15, respectively) are allowable as a matter of law for at least the reason that
`dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 contain all limitations of their respective independent
`base claim. See, e.g., In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 -(Fed. Cir. 1988). —Accordingly, the
`
`rejection to these claims should be withdrawn.
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`3.
`
`Observations Regarding George
`
`In the Office Action mailed July 6, 2004, the claims were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. §lO2 under an allegation that the claims were anticipated by George et al., (U .S.
`Patent 4,644,532), hereinafier George. Applicants amended independent claims 1, 8
`
`and 15 to distinguish the claims from George. These distinguishing amendments were
`
`sufficient to distingiish the claims, as shown by the new rejections under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103 (a) which allege all claims are unpatentable over Liang in View of Wood.
`
`Applicants respectfully note that George is limited to a system that “upon
`
`determining changes in network status, such network status changes are communicated
`to the adjacent control nodes” (Abstract). George states that “the purpose for
`maintaining a topology data base in the control node and continuous identification of an
`
`ownership session ...” (Col. 14, lines 27-29, emphasis added). That is, George is
`
`continuously updating its topology database since “changes in resources adjacent to the
`
`NC are recorded locally by the NC, and
`
`it forwards the cause of its report (new
`
`resource, failed resource, or change in characteristic) and its local time stamp as a .
`
`sequence identifier” (Col. 8, lines 35-44).
`
`Applicants respectfully refer the Examiner to MPEP §2l43.02, entitled “THE
`
`PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS CANNOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE OF
`
`OPERATION OF A REFERENCE.”
`
`The MPEP states that “if the proposed
`
`modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of
`
`the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not
`
`sufficient to render the claims primafacie obvious.”
`
`If George is modified by Liang, Wood or another reference to arrive at
`
`embodiments of the present invention, then the principle of operation of George will
`
`change because, first, George will no longer be updating continuously, and second,
`
`because the NCs will not be the devices initiating changes in the network topology.
`
`Because the principle of operation of George afler modification by Liang, Wood or
`another reference to arrive at embodiments of the present invention would be changed, a
`
`prima facie of obviousness cannot be established under any such possible scenario.
`
`Accordingly, the a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) cannot be properly
`
`established under a scenario wherein George is modified by Liang, Wood or another
`
`reference.
`
`

`
`Serial No.: 09/703,942
`Art Unit: 2664
`
`CONCL USION
`
`In light of the foregoing amendments and for at least the reasons set forth
`
`above, Applicants respectfully submit that all objections and/or rejections have been
`
`traversed, rendered moot, and/or accommodated, and that the now pending claims 1-3
`
`and 5-20 are in condition for allowance. Favorable reconsideration and allowance of
`
`the present application and all pending claims are hereby courteously requested.
`
`If, in
`
`the opinion of the Examiner, a telephonic conference would expedite the examination of
`
`this matter, the Examiner is invited to call the undersigned agent at (770) 933-9500.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/,,./4/$275
`
`Raymond W. Armentrout
`Reg. No. 45,866
`
`M""f""':":"mwr~
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
`Intellectual Property Administration
`P. O. Box 272400
`Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-2400
`
`
`
`IN THE
`
`gee, ,,
`PATENT APPLICATION
`¢
`0%
`
`1000 102-1
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`lnventorisl:
`
`Pulsipher, et al.
`
`Application No.: 09/703,942
`
`_
`
`'
`
`Confirmation No.: 4047
`
`Examiner: Ho, Chuong T,
`
`Filing Date:
`
`10/31/2000
`
`_ Group Art Unit: 2664
`
`Tme_
`'
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING AND PROCESSING CHANGES TO A
`NETWORK TOPOLOGY
`
`Mail Stop RCE
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION IRCE) 37 CFR 1.114
`
`Subsection (b) of 35 U.S.C. 132, effective on May 29, 2000, provides for continued examination of an utiltity or plant
`application filed on or after June 8, 1995.
`See The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 IAIPAI.
`
`Sir:
`
`This is a Request for Continued Ekamination (RCE) under CFR 1.114 of the above-identified applicaiton.
`NOTE: 37 CFR 1. T 14 is effective on May 20, 2000.
`If the above— application was filed prior to May 29, 2000, applicant
`may wish to considel filing a continued prosecution application (CPA) under CFR 1.53ld} (PTO/SB/2.9) instead of a-
`RCE to be eligible for the patent term adjustment provisions of the A/PA. See Changes to Application Examination
`and Provisional Application Practice, Interim Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 74865 (Mar. 20, 2000/, 1233 off. Gaz. Pat. Office
`47 (Apr.
`1 I, 2000/, which established RCE practice.
`
`‘Submission under 37 cm 1.1 14
`
`I
`
`A
`I Previously submitted:
`I
`I Consider the amendmentls)/reply under 37_ CFR 1.116 previously filed on _
`- (Any unentered amendmentlsi referred to above will be entered).
`
`(
`I
`
`) Consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief previously filed on
`I Other
`
`(X) Enclosed:
`
`(X) AmendmentlRepIy
`
`(
`(
`
`(
`
`(
`
`) Affidavitls)/DecIarations(s)
`)
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
`
`I Other _
`
`-
`
`_
`
`_,_
`
`______
`
`) Suspension of action is requested under 37 CFR 1.103(cI for a period of
`The fee for this Suspension is (37 CFR 1.'17(i)_I $130.00
`_
`
`_ months.
`
`) Other __________________________,___________ __T____________.
`I
`04/12/2005 IIIIONIIIIFI 00000164 082025
`097039-'02
`
`01 FC:1I301
`
`790.00 DA
`
`A
`
`I“!
`
`Rev 12/ounce:
`
`.
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`

`
`CONTINUED EXAMINATION TRANSMITTAL
`IRCE) (37 CFR 1.114)
`(continued)
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`1 00081024
`
`(X) RCE filing fee $790.00
`
`(
`
`) A Petition for Extension of Time
`(
`)
`one month
`s12Q_00
`(
`)
`two months
`$450_oo
`(
`)
`three months
`$1O20_00
`I
`I
`four months
`31 590_0o
`
`At any time during the
`$790.00
`Please charge to Deposit Account 08-2025 the sum of
`pendency of this application, please charge any fees required or credit any overpayment to Deposit
`Account 08-2025 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.25. Additionally please charge any fees to Deposit Account
`08-2025 under 37 CFR 1.16 through 1.21 inclusive, and any other sections in Title 37 of the Code of
`Federal Regulations that may regulate fees.
`
`(X) A duplicate copy of this transmittal letter is enclosed.
`
`‘X,
`
`,
`‘
`,
`_
`_
`_
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`with the United _States Postal Service as first class mail in
`an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents,
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`Date of Deposit: Q4-Q3-Q5
`
`Pulsipherl et al_
`-
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I hereby certify that this paper is being transmitted to the
`Patent and Trademark Office facsimile number
`on
`__________ ____e
`
`Number of pages:
`
`Typed Name: Marianne Boland
`Signature:
`
`Raymond W_ A,-mentrout
`
`Attorney/Agent for App|icant(s)
`Reg. No.
`45,866
`
`Date: 04-08-05
`
`Telephone No.: (770) 933-9500
`
`Rev 12/04 (RCE)
`
`_
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`‘m‘iiMui._
`
`

`
`HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
`Intellectual Property Administration
`P. 0. Box 272400
`Fort Collins, Colorado 80527-2400
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET N°-
`
`1 00081024
`
`IN THE
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Isl:
`
`Pulsipher, et al.
`
`tion No.:o9/703,942
`
`ling Date:
`
`2
`
`10/31/2000
`
`Confirmation No.: 4047
`
`Examiner: Ho, Chuong T.
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`2364
`
`Title:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING AND PROCESSING CHANGES TO A
`NETWORK TOPOLOGY
`
`Mail Stop RCE
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO Box ‘I450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR RESPONSE/AMENDMENT
`
`Sir:
`
`Transmitted herewith is/are the following in the above—identified application:
`
`(
`(
`
`)
`)
`
`Petition to extend time to respond
`Supplemental Declaration
`
`(X) Response/Amendment
`(
`_) New fee as calculated below
`(X)
`No additional fee
`(X)
`other; Request For Continued Examination
`CLAIMS AS AMENDED BY OTHER THAN A SMALL ENTITY
`
`(fee 3
`
`79530
`
`)
`.
`
`
`
`I2)
`CLAIMS REMAINING
`AFTER AMENDMENT
`
`(3)
`NUMBER
`EXTRA
`
`Mi
`HIGHEST NUMBER
`PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR
`
`I5)
`PRESENT
`EXTRA
`
`(5)
`RATE
`
`I7)
`ADDITIONAL
`FEES
`
`
`
`TOTAL
`.
`
`CLAIMS
`’
`{A
`O
`$50
`X
`
`
`
`INDEP.
`CLAIMS
`
`
`
`MINUS
`
`X ‘$200
`
`$
`
`
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`
`»
`
`
`
`
`[
`
`] FIRST PRESENTATION OF A MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`.
`
`+
`
`$360
`
`
`
`
`EXTENSION
`FEE
`
`1ST MONTH
`
`2ND MONTH
`
`3RD MONTH
`
`4TH MONTH
`
`$120.00 - $450.00 - $1020.00 I $1590.00
`
`.
`
`’
`
`OTHER FEES
`
`TOTAL ADDITIONAL FEE FOR THIS AMENDMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`790
`
`790
`
`$
`
`$
`
`to Deposit Account 08-2025. At any time during the pendency of this
`Zgg
`$
`Charge
`application, please charge any fees required or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account 08-2025
`pursuant to 37 CFR 1.25. ‘ Additionally please charge any fees to Deposit Account 08-2025 under 37
`CFR 1.16 through 1.21 inclusive, and any other sections in Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations
`that may regulate fees. A duplicate copy of this sheet is enclosed.
`
`being
`is
`correspondence
`this
`hereby certify that
`I
`deposited with the United States Postal Service as first
`class mail in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for
`Patents, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`‘
`
`Date of Deposit: 04-08-05
`
`Typed Name: Marianne Bo|and
`
`Signature:
`
`fig
`
`.
`
`i Z
`
`-
`
`9
`
`-
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Pulsipher, et a|_
`
` By
`
`'
`
`Raymond W. Armentrout_
`
`—
`
`Attorney/Agent for App|lcant(s)
`
`Reg. No.
`
`45,866
`
`Date: 04-08-05
`
`I
`
`Rev 12/04 lTrarlsAmd)
`
`Telephone No.: (770) 933-9500
`_
`- Attach as First Page to Transmitted Papers -
`13