UNITED STATES pATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gay
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,262
`
`11113/2009
`
`7,187,947
`
`AFF.0004B3US
`
`6569
`
`7590
`21906
`TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
`1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
`HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 ·
`
`06112/2014
`
`EXAMINER
`
`LAROSE, COLIN M
`
`I.
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`· L, _ _ __ M_A_I_L_D_A_TE_·----~--D~E-LI_v_ER_Y_M_o_o_E __ ~
`PAPER
`06/12/2014
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 1
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP
`(NDQ REEXAMINATION GROUP)
`1000 LOUISIANA STREET, FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`·Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`Date:
`
`MAILED
`
`JUN 12 2014
`
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`·
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95001262 + qo Ol/2.5'1
`PATENT NO.: 7187947
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trad.emark
`Office in the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`.................................................................................................................... -............ -....................... ._ .. , ... _____ , .......... _____ , __ ,,,. ...................................................................................................................................... ·--· __ , ____ , ........................................ .
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 2
`
`

`

`Transmittal of Communication to
`Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Examiner
`
`7,187,947
`Art Unit
`
`COLIN LAROSE
`
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`1r - - (THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) -----,1
`
`NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP
`(NDQ REEXAMINATION GROUP)
`1000 LOUISIANA STREET, FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`I
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above-identified reexamination prceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this communication,
`the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file written comments within a
`period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is
`statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter parte$ reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (Rev. 07-04)
`
`PaperNo.20140520
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 3
`
`

`

`./·~~.;;.:·.~·
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK0FF1CE
`. ~
`.:'
`~· .. "'. ':'
`:_ :~.f':~~~~~:: ... ;
`
`Commissioner ior Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Oftice
`P.O. 80X1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`VVWN.us.p'lo.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`................... !
`
`NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP
`(NDQ REEXAMINATION GROUP)
`1000 LOUISIANA STREET, FIFTY-THIRD FLOOR
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`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(f)).
`
`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(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.0?-04)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 4
`
`

`

`ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
`(37 CFR 1.949)
`
`95/001,262 & 90/011,254
`Examiner
`
`7,187,947
`Art Unit
`
`COLIN LAROSE
`
`3992
`
`Controi.No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`Patent Owner on 16 July, 2013
`Third Party(ies) on __
`
`Patent owner may .once file a submission under 37 CFR 1.951 (a) within .1 month(s) from the mailing date of this
`Office action. Where a submission is filed, third party requester may file responsive comments· under 37 CFR
`1.951(b) within 30-days (not extendable- 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(2)) from the date of service of the initial
`submission on the requester. 'Appeal cannot be taken from this action. Appeal can only be taken from a
`Right of Appeal Notice under 37 CFR 1.953.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`PART I. THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1. 0 Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PT0-892
`2. 0 Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`3. 0
`
`PART II. SUMMARY OF ACTION:
`1 a. [ZI Claims 1-64 are subject to reexamination.
`1 b. 0 Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`2. 0 Claims
`have been canceled.
`3.
`Claims __ are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims]
`4. 0 Claims __ are patentable. [Amended or new claims]
`!ZI Claims 1-50 and 52-64 are rejected.
`5.
`[ZI Claims §1 are objected to.
`6.
`are not acceptable.
`Dare acceptable
`7.
`The drawings filed on__
`is:
`D approved. D disapproved.
`8 o·The drawing correction request filed on
`9 0 Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-( d). The certified copy has:
`D been filed in Application/Control No __
`0 been received.
`not been received.
`10.0 Other __ ·
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2065 (08/06)
`
`Paper No. 20140520
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 5
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-2065)
`
`Control No.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 6
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/00 I ,262 and 90/0 II ,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520- Page 2
`
`ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
`
`I.
`
`The following action is being written for the merged proceeding of reexamination
`
`proceedings Control Numbers 90/011,254 and 95/001,262, which proceedings have been merged
`
`in a decision dated 10/28/2011.
`
`This action is in response to:
`
`--Patent Owner's amendments and remarks dated 7/16/2013.
`
`[Remarks by Third Party Requester have not been received.].
`
`Incorporation of Previous Arguments
`
`2.
`
`On p. 12 of the remarks, Patent Owner incorporates all arguments made in the previous
`
`Patent Owner response dated 8/16/2012. Therefore, the Examiner's response to those arguments
`
`in the Office action dated 5/7/2013, are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/011,254
`
`3.
`
`The ~ollowing prior art references are cited below in conjunction with the '254
`
`proceeding:
`
`U.S. Patent 6,192,340 ("Abecassis");
`
`U.S. Patent 6,377,825 ("Kennedy");
`
`U.S. Patent 6,338,044 ("Cook");
`
`Merged Proceedings Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 7
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 3
`
`U.S. Patent 6,728,531 ("Lee");
`
`U.S. Patent 6,915,272 ("Zilliacus");
`
`U.S. Patent 5,991,640 ("Lilja");
`
`U.S. Pate~t 5,797,089 ("Nguyen");
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System vl.OB, Vols. 1 and 2 ("Bluetooth");
`
`U.S. Patent 7,065,342 ("Rolf');
`
`Rathbone, .A., "MP3 for Dummies," lOG ~ooks Worldwide ("MP3 for Dummies");
`
`Jian Cai and David J. Goodman, "General Packet Radio Service in GSM," IEEE
`
`Communications Magazine ("Cai");
`
`U.S. Patent 7,123,936 ("Rydbeck");
`
`Lind, R., et al. "The Network Vehicle- A Glimpse into the Future of Mobile Multi-
`
`Media," IEEJ? ("Lind");
`
`GSM 03.64 version 6.0.1 Release 1997; TS l 01 350 V6.0.1 ("GSM");
`
`RealPJayer Plus G2 Manual ("RealPlayer'');
`
`U.S. Patent 6,314,094 ("Boys");
`
`U.S. Patent 6,609,105 ("Van Zoest");
`
`Nokia 9110 User's Manual ("Nokia User's Manual").
`
`Merged Proceedings-· Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 8
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 4
`
`Response to Arguments Regarding the '254 Ex Parte Proceeding
`
`4.
`
`Rejections based on Abecassis and Kennedy (SNQs A-0)
`
`(see Patent Owner remarks, p. 13)
`
`Patent Owner's remarks with respect to SNqs A-D have been considered, but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Claim I recites "an interface configured to releasably engage with a docking mechanism
`
`of a separate sound system such that ... the digital representation [of the audio information] can
`
`be communicated to the separate sound system via the interface."
`
`In the previous Office action (see 5117/2013 Office action at pp. 12-13 ), it was found that
`
`Abecassis did not teach that the outputted representation of the audio is "digital," as claimed.
`
`Kennedy, however, was relied upon for curing such a deficiency, and specifically, for teaching a
`
`cellt:lar device that permits the' output of both analog and digital audio data to a separate sound
`
`system, depending on the context. For example, in figure 3 of Kennedy, audio data from a cell
`
`phone I 02 can be output in analog form for playback on the speaker of an automobile 366.
`
`Alternatively, or in addition, audio data can be outputted in digital form to a vehicle subsystem
`
`378 that is operative to store and process digital data. For instance, vehicle subsystem 378 can be
`
`"devices for the storage of digital audio for playback through the automobile's stereo, such as
`
`devices storing music in the MP3 format" (see Kennedy, column 8:2-1 0).
`
`Patent Owner contends that the combination of Abecassis and Kennedy does not teach or
`
`othen:yise suggest "the digital representation [of the audio information] can be communicated to
`
`the separate sound system via the interface" because allegedly none of the devices listed by
`
`Kennedy as external subsystems 3 78 is a sound system (see Patent Owner remarks, p. 13 ). This
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 9
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 5
`
`argument is not persuasive. Kennedy's external subsyst~m 378 can be a "device[] for the storage
`
`of digital audio for playback through the automobile's stereo, such as devices storing music in
`
`the MP3 format" (see Kennedy, column 8:4-9). In this arrangement, the digital storage device
`
`378 is coupled to the automobile's stereo, and therefore, functions as a component of the
`
`vehicle's sound system (i.e., a "separate sound system," as claimed), which is comprised of, inter
`
`alia, the digital audio storage 378 and the automobile's stereo for playing stored digital audio.
`
`Accordingly, the previous rejections corresponding to SNQs A-D have been maintained.
`
`5.
`
`Rejections based on Lee and Bluetooth CSNQs J-K)
`
`(see Patent Owner remarks, p. 13)
`
`Patent Owner's remarks with respect to SNQs J-K have been considered, but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Claim 17 recites "a display configured to present a user interface that comprises an icon
`
`representing a locally stored audio file."
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Lee does not disclose displaying an icon representing a locally
`
`stored audio file that can be selected by the user. However, it is apparent from Lee's disclosure at
`
`column 9:10-25 and figure 2 that icons representing stored audio files are in fact displayed for
`
`user selection.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the interpretation of "icon" given on p. 2 of the previous
`
`6/18/2012 Office action, which established that an icon denotes any visual "thing"-text,
`
`symbol, graphic, image, etc.-that is representative of or linked to other content.
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 10
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 6
`
`Figure 2 of Lee illustrates a display where a user can scroll through visual information
`
`representative· of stored audio files and select a desired audio file. The visual representation of an
`
`audio file constitutes an "icon" in accordance with the claimed invention. Lee expressly teaches
`
`that a user can "manually access and sele~t any of the audio and information channels av.ailable
`
`by browsing through them ... in a hierarchical tree ... [and] types of major channel categories
`
`could include ... recorded audio" (see Lee, column 9: I 0-25). Furthermore, the user can
`
`"contigure the presentation of major categories and subcategories so that he/she sees only those
`
`categories of interest" (see id. ), and figure 2 illustrates an exemplary display where the user is
`
`presented the "hierarchical tree" for browsing through and selecting icons of recorded audio.
`
`Accordingly, the previous rejections corresponding to SNQs J-K have been maintained ..
`
`6.
`
`4. Rejections based on Lee, Bluetooth, MP3 for Dummies, and Cook CSNOs
`
`(see Patent Owner remarks, p. 14)
`
`Patent Owner presents the same arguments for SNQs L-M as above for SNQs J-K.
`
`These arguments are found unpersuasive for the same reasons, and therefore, the rejections
`
`corresponding to SNQs L-M have been maintained.
`
`Merged Proceedings Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 11
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`7.
`
`Rejections based on Lee and Cai (SNQs N-Q)
`
`(see Patent Owner remarks, pp. 14-15)
`
`Paper No. 20140520- Page 7 ·
`
`Patent Owner's remarks with respect to SNQs N-Q have.been considered, but they are
`
`not persuasive. Contrary to Patent Owner's assertion, the previous Office action did not rely on
`
`inherency for the finding that Lee discloses a launchable interface file. Rather, it was explained
`
`how Lee's configuration data corresponds to a launchable interface file inasmuch as the
`
`configuration data represents visual interface information that is capable of being executed or
`
`loaded, in accordance with the previous interpretation of a "launchable interface file."
`
`In particular, claim 29 recites "a wireless communication network configured to
`
`communicate a launchable interface file to the cellular communication device such that the user
`
`interface is presented on a display of the cellular communication device." Patent Owner asserts
`
`that Lee does not disclose the claimed "launchable interface file." However, it is apparent from
`
`Lee's disclosure at column 12:33-37 and the associated context of Lee's disclosure that the
`
`configuration information provided by a user constitutes a launchable interface file.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the interpretation of "launchable interface file" given on
`
`pp. 3-4 of the previous 6/18/2012 Office action, which established that a launchable interface file
`
`denotes visual interface information capable of being "launched"-i.e., executed or loaded.
`
`At column 12:33-37, Lee describes a process whereby a user is allowed to specify a
`
`customized user interface. Then, the interface information is launched by transmitting it to and
`
`executing it on the multimedia device in the vehicle. Figure 5 of Lee illustrates an example of
`
`allowing a user to specify a custom interface that presents only desired categories and
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 12
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 8
`
`subcategories of media sources to the user. The choosing from among the huge variety of
`
`available media sources is simplified by allowing the user to preprogram or preconfigure the user
`
`interface through a remote computer (see Lee, column 12:23-37).
`
`The configuration data that is specified by the user and transmitted to the multimedia
`
`device is considered to correspond to the claimed "launchable interface file" in that the
`
`configuration data comprises information pertaining to how the visual interface of the
`
`multimedia device is to be configured according to the user's preferences.
`
`Accordingly, the previous rejections corresponding to SNQs N-Q have been maintained.
`
`8.
`
`Rejections based on Lee, GSM, and RealPlayer (SNQs R-T)
`
`('lee Patent Owner remarks, p. 15)
`
`Patent Owner presents the same arguments for SNQs R-T as above for SNQs N-Q.
`
`These arguments are found unpersuasive for the same reasons, and therefore, the rejections
`
`corresponding to SNQs R-T have been maintained.
`
`9.
`
`Rejections based on Boys and GSM (SNOs U-BB)
`
`(s·ee Patent Owner remarks, p. 15)
`
`Patent Owner's remarl<s with respect to SNQs U-BB have been considered, but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`Merged Proceedings Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 13
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 9
`
`Claim 29 recites "a wireless communication network configured to communicate a
`
`launchable interface file to the cellular communication device such that the user interface is
`
`presented on a display of the cellular communication device."
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Boys does not disclose the claimed "launchable interface file."
`
`However, it is apparent from Boys' disclosure at columns 3:39-43 and 13:11-20 and the
`
`associated context of Boys' disclosure that the profile information communicated to the user's
`
`internet radio constitutes a launchable interface file.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the interpretation of"launchable interface file" given on
`
`pp. 3-4 of the previous 6118/2012 Office action, which established that a launchable interface file
`
`denotes visual interface information capable of being "launched"-i.e., executed or loaded.
`
`At columns 3:39-43 and 13:11-20, Boys describes a process whereby an editable user
`
`profile. is stored by the server, and when a user connects the Internet-capable radio to the server,
`
`the user's profile is automatically launched, i.e.,· downloaded and executed, in order to alter the
`
`user interface in accordance with the individualized parameters of the user profile. For instance,
`
`Boys allows the user to develop a profile that include~ a list of hyper links to desired radio servers
`
`(see id.) in a similar manner to how Lee allows a user to generate a customized listing of desired
`
`media sources. If, for instance, the user alters his profile by forming a list of hyperlinks, the
`
`server will update the interface of the user's Internet radio itselfto.reflect the changes in the
`
`profile, the next time Internet radio accesses the server (see Boys, column 13: 11-20).
`
`The profile data that is specified by the user and transmitted to the Internet radio device is
`
`considered to correspond to the. claimed "launchable interface file" in that the profile data
`
`Merged Proceedings Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 14
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page I 0
`
`comprises information pertaining to how the visual interface of the radio is to be configured
`
`according to the user's preferences.
`
`Accordingly, the previous rejections corresponding to SNQs U-BB have been
`
`maintained.
`
`I 0.
`
`Previous New Grounds of Rejection Based on Kennedy
`
`(see Patent Owner remarks, pp. 15-16)
`
`Patent Owner's remarks with respect to SNQs U-BB have been considered, and they are
`
`persuasive. Patent Owner argues that Kennedy does not teach a memory module configured to
`
`store audio information "received via a cellular communication network independent of the
`
`incoming telephonic communication." In the previous Office action, Kennedy was characterized
`
`as receiving voicemails over the cellular. communication network at column 11':59-60 (see
`
`5/ I 7/2013 Office action, p. 27); however, Patent Owner correctly points out that the cited
`
`passage refers to voice memos, and not voicemails. As such, there is no indication in Kennedy
`
`that the voice memos are "received via a cellular network," as claimed. Furthermore, Kennedy
`
`does mention accessing voice mail at column5:37-41, however, even if the voice mail is
`
`received over the cellular network, there is no indication that the voice mail messages are ever
`
`stored in a memory module of the cellular device, as claimed (as opposed to being stored
`
`remotely).
`
`For these reasons, the previous rejections based on anticipation of claim I by Kennedy
`
`have been withdrawn.
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 15
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 11
`
`Claim Rejections- 35 USC§ 103
`
`II.
`
`[SNQ A] Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, and 43-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being
`
`~npatentable over Abecassis in view of Kennedy.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Abecassis discloses a cellular communication device (multimedia
`
`player, such as shown in figure 2) comprising:
`
`a cellular communication module configured to receive an incoming telephonic
`
`communication (column 8:52-67: multimedia device includes a communications module that
`
`supports cellular phone communications);
`
`a memory module configured to store audio information received via a cellular
`
`communication network independent of the incoming telephonic communication (figure I: the
`
`multimedia player includes fixed 103 and removable 104 storage; column 1:56-65: audio may be
`
`downloaded to the local storage media by a "transmission," which may be a "cellular"
`
`transmission);
`
`a processor communicatively coupled to the memory module and configured to process
`
`the audio information and to output a 4igttal representation of the audio information (column
`
`8:52-9:4: an audio/data output module employs a microprocessor and/or digital signal
`
`processor to output audio);
`
`a local power supply configured to provide power to the processor (figure 1: power
`
`supply 1 09); and
`
`an interface _configured to releasably engage with a docking mechanism of a separate
`
`sound system (column 14:8-16: Abecassis' multimedia player includes an interface so that it can
`
`be engaged with and inserted into an in-vehicle docking bay) such that:·
`
`Merged Proceedings Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 16
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/00 I ,262 and 90/0 II ,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`· Paper No. 20140520- Page 12
`
`(2) the digital representation can be communicated to the separate sound system via the
`
`. interface (column 14:8-16: audio outputted from the multimedia player is communicated to an
`
`in-vehicle sound system when the player is docked in the vehicle); and (3) a control signal of the
`
`cellular communication device can alter an operational parameter of the separate sound system in
`
`response to the incoming telephonic communication (see columns 2:34-43,28:1-13, and 28:63-
`
`29: 19).
`
`Abecassis does not appear to disclose a local rechargeable battery configured to provide
`
`power to the processor; and
`
`an interface configured to releasably engage with a docking mechanism of a separate
`
`sound system such that: (I) a power supply of the separate sound system can recharge the local
`
`rechargeable battery via the interface.
`
`Kennedy discloses a hands-free wireless communication device for use in a vehicle.
`
`Specifically, Kennedy teaches that "even with advanced battery compositions and power-saving
`
`strategies, the batteries of wireless telephones eventually need to be recharged" (column 1:33-
`
`35). The wireless device is provided with a docking station, such as shown in figure lA that
`
`enables the device to be held in the vehicle and to be connected to the automobile's sound
`
`system via an interface module, such as shown in figures 3 and 4 of Kennedy. Among other
`
`things, the docking arrangement provides for power to be delivered to the device so that its
`
`battery can be recharged (see column II :37-48).
`
`Based on the teachings that wireless pl)ones are known to utilize rechargeable batteries,
`
`that there is a need to recharge the batteries, and that the recharging can be carried out by
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 17
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 13
`
`connecting the phone to an in-vehicle docking station, it would have been obvious to those
`
`skilled in the art to modify Abecassis' mobile device and docking arrangement to include a
`
`rechargeable battery and a power supply of the separate sound system (such as the car battery
`
`and power supply of Kennedy's interface module I 06) for recharging the battery via the docking
`
`arrangement, as claimed. See also the rationale provided on pp. 1-25 of the claim charts in
`
`Exhibit CC-A.
`
`In addition, Abecassis does not appear to te~ch that the outputted representation of the
`
`audio is "digital," as Claimed. At column 14:8-16, Abecassis teaches that the portable audio
`
`player shown in figure 2 can be connected to a speaker system of a vehicle via a built-in docking
`
`bay so that the speaker system can "accept the output" from the portable audio player.
`
`Patent
`
`Owner contends that the audio output from the portable player is not necessarily digital audio,
`
`and b:Y all accounts, it seems that the outputted audio would in fact be analog audio since it is
`
`intended to be communicated directly to a speaker system.
`
`Kenneqy, however, teaches a cellular device that permits the output of both analog and
`
`digital audio data, depending on the context. For example, in figure 3 of Kennedy, audio data
`
`from a cell phone 102 can be output in analog form for playback on the speaker of an automobile
`
`366. Alternatively, or in addition, audio data can be outputted in digital form to a vehicle
`
`subsystem 378 that is operative to store and process digital data. For instance, vehicle subsystem
`
`3 78 can be "devices for the storage of digital audio for playback through the automobile's stereo,
`
`such as devices storing music in the MP3 format" (see Kennedy, column 8:2-1 0). Based on this
`
`teaching in Kennedy, it would have been apparent to those skilled in the art that it would have
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing. Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 18
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 ~ Page 14
`
`been advantageous for Abecassis' multimedia player to provide digital audio output capabilities,
`
`in addition to·analog output capabilities. The inherent benefit is that the device would be more
`
`versatile inasmuch as audio stored thereon could be transferred in digital form to another digital
`
`device and would not be limited to an analog playback, or the like, as outputted through
`
`speakers.
`
`Dependent claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15 are also rejected on the same grounds, as explained
`
`on pp. 25-56 ofthe claim charts in Exhibit CC-A.
`
`Regarding claim 43, Abecassis discloses a display located on a front surface of the device
`
`and wherein the interface is a single interface located on a surface of the device other than the
`
`front surface (see Abecassis, figures 2 and 3 and column 14:8~16).
`
`Regarding claim 44, Abecassis discloses the interface is configured to contact a single
`
`contact pmiion of the docking station (see Abecassis at column 5:53-56: teaching a single
`
`interface such as a single cable including fiber optic cable, coaxial cable, and twisted pair copper
`
`wire, and cabling required to access a variety of networks).
`
`Regarding claim 45, Abecassis discloses the device is configured to allow the incoming
`
`telephonic communication, corresponding to a cellular call, to be communicated via the separate
`
`sound system (see Abecassis at columns 8:52-67 and 9:26-28: multimedia player can function as
`
`a cellular phone and an audio output connector 204 provides audio to external speakers or to a
`
`listening device and an audio input connector 205 can receive audio inputted from an external
`
`microphone).
`
`Merged Proceedings ... Aclion Closing Proseculion (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 19
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper·No. 20140520- Page 15
`
`Regarding claim 46, Kennedy discloses the interface has a size and shape configured to
`
`engage a single non-circular contacting interface of the docking mechanism (see Kennedy at
`
`figure lA, which shows a conventional non-circular shaped interface of the docking mechanism).
`
`Regarding claim 4 7, Abecassis discloses the docking mechanism, wherein the docking
`
`mechanism comprises a cable including multiple conductive elements (see A_becassis column
`
`5:53-56: teaching a single interface such as a cable that necessarily includes multiple conductive
`
`elements).
`
`Regarding claim 48, Abecassis discloses the cellular communication device is a cellular
`
`telephone (see Abecassis at columns 8:52-67 and 9:26-28: multimedia player can function as a
`
`cellular phone).
`
`Regarding claim 49, Abecassis discloses the cellular telephone is configured to allow an
`
`incoming cellular call to be communicated via the ·separate sound system (see Abecassis at
`
`columns 8:52-67 and 9:26-28: an audio output connector 204 provides audio to external speakers
`
`or to a listening device and an audio input connector 205 can receive audio inputted from an
`
`external microphone).
`
`12.
`
`[SNQ B] Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 0,3(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Abecassis in view of Kennedy, and further in view of Cook.
`
`Dependent claim 5 is rejected on the above grounds, as explained by the claim charts in
`
`Exhibit CC-B.
`
`Merged Proceedings- Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 20
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Paper No. 20140520 - Page 16
`
`13.
`
`[SNQ C] Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Abecassis in view of Kennedy, and further in view of Lee.
`
`Dependent claim 7 is rejected on the above grounds, as explained by the claim charts in
`
`Exhibit CC-C.
`
`14.
`
`[SNQ D] Claims 14 am;l16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Abecassis in view of Kennedy, and further in view of Zilliacus.
`
`Dependent claims 14 and 16 are rejected on the above grounds, as explained by the claim
`
`charts in Exhibit CC-0.
`
`15.
`
`[SNQ J] Claims 17-19 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Lee in view of Bluetooth.
`
`Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses a cellular communication device (multimedia device
`
`20, figures 1 and 2) comprising:
`
`a processor (CPU 90, figure 2) configured to play plural audio information formats
`
`(column 8:28-64: AM, FM, TV audio, digital audio, Internet audio broadcasts, and MP3 files are
`
`among the audio formats that the device 20 can play back using the processor 90);
`
`a communication module configured to receive a wirelessly communicated collection of
`
`digital data packets representing a user selected media having a first audio information fom1at
`
`Merged Proceedings~ Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) ·
`
`Samsung Ex. 1417 p. 21
`
`

`

`Control Number: 95/001,262 and 90/011,254
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Pap~r No. 20140520- Page 17
`
`(programmable multi-band