`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`_
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www‘usptogov
`
`90/010,831
`
`4
`
`01/22/2010
`
`5,490,216
`
`2914.001REXO
`
`2214
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1 100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`‘
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DATE MAILED: 09/28/2010
`
`PleaseE find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. lO/03)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 1
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 1
`
`

`

`"gn s ,‘n
`{k UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`. A; -._W______-..V____._.,,._,_._W._,.“Mum...................................................................................
`
`.
`,1“
`.
`'
`Commissionerfor Patents
`_
`8*?)
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`firmer-V
`PO. Box 1 450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`wvwvusptogov
`
`k ~ DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`Kyle Rinehart
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 SW. Salmon Street
`Portland, OR 97204
`
`.
`
`MAI LED
`_
`E'
`SJ: 2 8 2010
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNW
`
`EXPARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/010 831.
`
`PATENT NO. 5 490 216.
`
`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(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(9)).
`
`PTOL~465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 2
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`Examiner
`MATTHEW HENEGHAN
`
`
`
`
`
`Control No.
`90/010,831
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`5,490,216
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`
`
`bl: This action is made FINAL.
`.
`aE] Responsive to the communication(s) filed on
`CIA statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`
`
`
`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 of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 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 of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part l
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`1:] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`3. Cl
`interview Summary, PTO-474.
`.
`
`IE Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`4.
`[:1
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`
`
`1a. E Claims 1-20 are subject to reexamination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are not subject to reexamination.
`
`have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`are patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims
`
`Claims
`
`Claims
`
`DIZIIIJEJD Claims
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected.
`
`are objected to.
`
`. [I The drawings, filed on _ are acceptable.
`
`3 4 5 6
`
`7. E] The proposed drawing correction, filed on __ has been (7a)E} approved (7b)I:I disapproved.
`8 . [I Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)[] All b)|:] Some* c)lj None
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`1D been received.
`
`2:] not been received.
`
`3:] been filed in Application No.
`
`
`
`4:] been filed in reexamination Control No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5B 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. [3 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.
`
`- 1
`
`0. I] Other:
`
`cc: Re-uester ifthird a
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL—466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20100907
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 3
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 3
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Reexamination
`
`An Ex Parte Reexamination has been granted for claims 1-20 of US. Patent No.
`
`5,490,216 (hereinafter ”the ‘216 patent”). See Order, mailed 9 April 2010.
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR
`
`1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
`
`proceeding, involving Patent No. 5,490,216 throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding. The third party requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise
`
`the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination
`
`proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282 and 2286.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these
`
`proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and
`
`not to parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that
`
`ex parte reexamination proceedings "will be conducted with speCial dispatch" (37
`
`CFR 1.550(a)). Extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided
`
`for in 37 CFR 1.550(0).
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 4
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 4
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`'
`
`In orderxto ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or
`
`declarations, or other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be
`
`submitted in response to this Office action. Submissions after the next Office action,
`which is intended to be a final action, will be governed by the requirements of 37
`
`_
`
`CFR 1.116, after final rejection and 37 CFR 41.33 after appeal, which will be strictly
`
`enforced.
`
`Claims 1-20 have been examined.
`
`Information Disclosure Statements
`
`The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 21 May 2010 and 31 August
`
`2010 have been fully considered. Correspondences to and from the US. and Foreign
`
`Patent and Copyright Offices have been considered, but have been crossed out on the
`
`Forms 1449 because they are not prior art. ltems NPL13 and NPL20 on the IDS filed 31
`
`August 2010 have been crossed out because it is not clear that they were publicly
`
`available publications. ltem NPL 18 has been crossed out because the date in the
`
`citation is not clear.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 5
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`References Submitted by Requester
`
`The following references have been found to establish a substantial new question of
`
`patentability. See Order, mailed 9 April 2010:
`
`US. Patent No. 5,490,216 to Hellman (hereinafter Hellman), either alone or in view of
`
`US. Patent No. 4,796,220 to Grundy (hereinafter Grundy) or US. Patent No. 5,291,598
`
`to Wolfe (hereinafter Wolfe).
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Claim 7 recites “said platform unique ID" in line 5. It is not clear to what this
`
`limitation refers. it is being presumed that this is a field produced by the platform unique
`
`ID generating means.
`
`Claim 12 lacks a transitional phrase. It is being presumed that the limitations of
`
`the claim comprise all those beginning with “said registration system
`
`In line 2 and
`
`the limitations have been recited in an open-ended manner.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 6
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 6
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Means Plus Function Limitations
`
`Several means plus function limitations that are being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraph appear in the claims of the ‘216 patent. They are support by the
`
`specification as follows:
`
`local licensee unique ID generating means (claims 1, 19, 20): a hardware summer (see
`
`figure 10 and column 12, lines 62—65), including supporting software, with inputs (see
`
`column 12, lines 51—61), may be implemented in software, column 13, lines 42—48).
`
`remote licensee unique ID generating means (claims 1,19, 20): a remote hardware
`
`summer (see figure 10 and column 13, lines 2-10), may be implemented in software,
`
`column 13, lines 42-48)
`
`mode switching means (claims 1, 19, 20), mode-switching means (claim 17): two
`
`hardware gates and a comparator that determine software flow, controlled by a relay,
`
`which is driven by software (see column 13, lines 22-40, may be implemented in
`
`software, column 13, lines 42—48).
`platform unique ID generating means (claim 7): code for creating the platform unique ID
`
`(see column 5, lines 57-64), read from a digital code reading device (see column 12,
`
`lines 46-50).
`
`registration key generating means (claim 17): a hardware summer (see figure 10 and
`
`column 12, lines 62-65), with inputs (see column 12, lines 51-61), may be implemented
`
`in software, column 13, lines 42—48).
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 7
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 7
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`The term “third party means of operation" in claim 17 is not being treated as a 35 U.S.C.
`
`/ 112, sixth paragraph limitation because it does not have a function associated with the
`
`means, other than the broad term "operation.”
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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 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.
`
`-
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejectedunder 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hellman in view of Grundy.
`
`As per claim 1,'Hellman discloses a system including local licensee unique lD
`
`(see column 10, lines 14-18) and remote licensee unique ID generation (see column 6,
`
`line 62 to column 7, line 2), said system further including mode switching means (see
`
`column 10, lines 18-26) operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data
`
`in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee unique ID first generated by said
`
`local licensee unique ID generation has matched a licensee unique ID generated by
`
`said remote licensee unique ID generation (see column 10, lines 18-26; in the scenario
`
`where the number of authorized uses is previously 0, a failure results in the product not
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 8
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`being operable, see column 10, lines 44-54); and wherein said remote licensee unique
`
`ID generation comprises software executed on a platform which includes the algorithm
`
`utilized by said local licensee unique ID generation to produce said licensee unique ID
`
`(see column 7, lines 27-32; the program being executed is implicitly part of the process,
`
`including the generation of H in figure‘ 2 and column 10, lines 33-43).
`
`Hellman does not disclose that the comparison using the local licensee unique ID
`
`should only be against a remote licensee unique ID that has been subsequently
`
`generated. However, the generations of these two values are independent of one
`
`another and it would be obvious to generate the IDS in either order.
`
`Hellman discloses seVeral algorithms for local licensee unique ID and remote
`
`licensee unique ID generation, but none of them could possibly be performed using just
`
`the summer disclosed in the ‘216 patents specification for local licensee unique ID
`
`generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, discussed above.
`
`Grundy discloses an analogous algorithm for unique ID generation, wherein the
`
`unique ID, a registration code, is produced by performing a checksum of the user data
`
`component fields (see column 15, lines 3-23 and column 18, lines 25-29). One skilledkin
`the art would recognize that the use of a checksum in producing a unique ID would be
`advantageous because it is easier to implement.
`
`Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify Hellman to use Grundy's checksum for ID generation,
`
`because it is easier to implement.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 9
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 9
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`As per claim 2, Hellman’s unique ID generating algorithm produces an ID that is
`
`.at least as unique as that of the ‘216 invention from the four inputs for the party who is
`
`being billed, eg. the user (see column 5, lines 59-63; column 9, lines 10-15; column 10,
`
`lines 14-18; column 27, lines 27-32; column 9, lines 58-63).
`
`Regarding claim 3, subsequent applications of the invention would require the
`
`use of the same unique ID in Hellman; therefore, subsequent uses of the-algorithm
`
`would fail if the number were to change.
`
`As per claims 4 and 5, the software being validated, which is being input into the
`
`mode switching means, is used as aninput to the unique ID generation system (see
`
`column 10, lines 33-43).
`
`As per claim 6, Hellman discloses that a name may be used in the production of
`
`the unique ID (H is derived from the name of the software, see column 6, lines 31-61).
`
`As per claims 7-9, Hellman’s algorithm for producing a platform ID (A), which
`
`comprises the digital data, incorporates the platform unique key, K, which is a type of
`
`“other platform information.” The software fails if the value of A has changed from its
`
`original value (see column 9, lines 50-63).
`
`As per claims 10 and 11, Hellman does not explicitly discuss the architecture of
`
`the Computer on which the protected software is being executed; however, the use of
`
`operating systems for such deployments is nearly universal and it is therefore implicitfor
`such computers to have operating systems upon which such user applications are run.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Hellman discloses a registration system generating a
`
`security key from information input to said software (see column 10, lines 14-18 and 27-
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 10
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 10
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`,
`
`.
`
`;
`
`Page 9
`
`32); and wherein said registration system is replicated at a registration authority (see
`column 10, line3427-32) and used for the purposes of checking by the registration
`
`authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the
`
`security key is generated by the registration system.
`-Hellman discloses the generating of a security key from various, information, but
`
`does not disclose that the information input for the security key to said software uniquely
`
`identifies an intended registered user of said software on a computer on which said
`
`software is to be installed.
`
`Grundy discloses the generation of a checkSum, which is used as a security key,
`
`that is derived at least in part from the user data-(see column 18, lines 25-33). One
`
`skilled in the art would recognize that this would be advantageous by supporting
`
`licensing on a per-user basis rather than a per-platform basis.
`
`Hellman also does not disclose the key is used for the purposes of checking by
`
`the registration authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at
`the time that the security-key is generated by the registration system.
`
`-
`
`Grundy further discloses a check of entered user information by comparing'the '
`
`checksum from newly entered data to that which was previously generated (see column
`15, lines 13-26). Gne skilled in the art would recognize that this would help prevent data
`
`entry errors.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention was made to modify the invention of Hellman as per Grundy, to support
`
`licensing on a per-user basis and to prevent data entry errors.
`
`‘
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 11
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 11
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 10
`
`As per claim 13, Hellman discloses the use of a random number, R, in the
`
`security key generation (see column 10, lines 14-18).
`
`Regarding claim 14, Hellman further discloses that the key generation further
`
`comprises a key K (also SK) derived as part of the algorithm via a table look_-up from the
`
`platform's serial number (see column 6, lines 16-21).
`
`Regarding claims 15 and 16, although Hellman discloses that the use of
`
`demonstration modes in known in the art so that the customer may experiment with the
`
`software before making a buying decision (see column 2, lines 14-48), Hellman does
`
`not disclose boot checks, including a determination to allow for a demonstration mode
`
`after the first boot.
`
`Grundy discloses a boot check (see column 16, lines 39-49 and 64-68) and, if
`
`shows a previous use, allows full use mode if authorization is successful and a
`
`demonstration mode othenNise (see column 5, lines 37-49) that is based on hardware
`identification, which is not user-configurable (see column 18, lines34-414).
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`was made to yet further modify Hellman as per Grundy, so that the customer may
`
`experiment with the software before making a buying decision.
`
`As per claim 17, Hellman discloses a method comprising providing mode-
`
`switching means (a comparator, see column 10, lines 18-26) associated with said
`
`software adapted to switch said software between a fully enabled mode and a partly
`
`enabled or demonstration mode (although Hellman’s preferred embodiment does not
`
`use a demonstration mode, Hellman discloses the use of such a scheme in the prior art,
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 12
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 12
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`so that the customer may experiment with the software before making a buying
`
`decision, see column 2, lines 14-48. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to use these two modes based on Hellman), said method further
`
`comprising providing registration key generation; said mode-switching means switching
`
`said software into fully enabled mode only if an enabling key provided to said mode-
`
`switching means by said intending user at the time of registration of said software has
`
`matched identically with said registration key (the comparator'only allows for use of the
`fully enabled mode if there is a match); and wherein said enabling key is communicated
`
`to said intending user at the time of registration of said software (see column 6, lines 3-
`
`8); said enabling key generated by a third party means of operation of a duplicate copy
`
`of said registration key generation (generated by Authorization and Billing Unit, see
`
`column 6, lines 3—8).
`
`Hellman’s registration key generation is not a function of information unique to an
`
`intending user of the software.
`
`Grundy discloses the generation of a checksum, which is used as a registration
`
`key, that is derived at least in part from the user data (see column 18, lines 25-33). One .
`
`skilled in the art would recognize that this would be advantageous by supporting
`
`licensing on a per-user basis rather than a per—platform basis.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the invention was made to modify the invention of Hellman as per Grundy, to support
`
`licensing on a per-user basis.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 13
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 13
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`‘ Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992 .
`
`As per claim 18, Hellman’s algorithm for producing a registration key
`
`incorporates the platform unique key, K, which is part of the platform’s environment (see
`
`column 9, lines 50-63).
`
`As per claim 19, Hellman discloses a system including local licensee unique ID
`
`generation (see column 10, lines 14-18), said system further including mode switching
`
`means operable on said platform (a comparator, see column 10, lines 18-26) which
`
`permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if (see column
`
`, 10, lines 18—26; in the scenario where the number of authorized uses is previously 0, a
`
`failure results in the product not being operable, see column 10, lines 44-54) a licensee
`
`unique ID generated by said local licensee unique ID generation has matched a
`
`licensee unique ID generated by said remote licensee unique ID generation (see
`
`column 6, line 62 to column 7, line 2); and wherein said remote licensee unique ID.
`
`generation comprises software executed on a platform which includes the algorithm 4
`
`utilized by said local licensee unique ID generation to produce said licensee unique ID ,
`
`(see column 10, lines 14-18).
`
`Hellman discloses several algorithms for local licensee unique ID and remote
`
`licensee unique ID generation, but none of them could possibly be performed using just
`
`the summer disclosed in the ‘216 patents specification for local licensee unique ID
`generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, discussed above. ’
`
`Grundy discloses an analogous algorithm for unique ID generation, wherein the
`
`unique ID, a registration code, is produced by performing a checksum of the user data
`
`component fields (see column 15, lines 3-23 and column 18, lines 25-29). One skilled in
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 14
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 14
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`the art would recognize that the use of a checksum in producing a unique ID would be
`
`advantageous because it is easier to implement.
`
`Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify Hellman to use Grundy's checksum for ID generation,
`
`because it is easier to implement.
`
`As per claim 20, Hellman discloses a method comprising, an intending licensee
`
`operating a registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode (see
`
`abstract), said digital data executable on a platform, said system including local licensee
`
`unique ID generation (see column 10, lines 14-18) and remote licensee unique ID
`
`generation (see column 6, line 62 to column 7, line 2), said system further including
`
`mode switching means (a comparator, see column 10, lines 18-26) operable on said
`
`platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if
`
`a licensee unique ID generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has
`
`matched a licensee unique ID generated by said remote licensee unique ID generation
`
`(see column 10, lines 18-26; in the scenario where the number of authorized uses is
`
`previously 0, a failure results in the product not being operable, see column 10, lines 44—
`
`54);, and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generation comprises software
`
`executed on a platform which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee
`
`unique ID generation to produce said licensee unique ID (see column 10, lines 27-32).
`
`Hellman discloses several algorithms for local licensee unique ID and remote
`
`licensee unique ID generation, but none of them could possibly be performed using just
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 15
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`the summer disclosed in the ‘216 patent’s specification for local licensee unique ID
`
`generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, discussed above.
`Grundy discloses an analogous algorithm for unique ID generation, wherein the
`
`unique ID, a registration code, is produced by performing a checksum of the user data
`
`component fields (see column 15, lines 3-23 and column 18, lines 25-29). One skilled in
`
`the art would recognize that the use of a checksum in producing a unique ID would be
`
`advantageous because. it is easier to implement.
`
`Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the -
`
`invention was made to modify Hellman to use Grundy’s checksum for ID generation,
`
`because it is easier to implement.
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 16
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 16
`
`

`

`I Application/Control Number: 90/010,831
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`Conclusion
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed:
`By Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273—9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web 'may alternatively submit such correspondence via the electronic
`filing system EFS-Web, at httgs:llsgortal.uspto.gov/authenticate/authenticateuserlocalegf.html. EFS-
`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 should be directed to Examiner Matthew Heneghan at
`telephone number (571 )272-3834.
`
`/Matthew Heneghan/
`
`Primary Examiner, USPTO AU 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`W
`
`JESSICA HARRISON
`SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 17
`
`Petitioners Ex. 1010 Page 17
`
`