throbber
VWGoA - Ex. 1008
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner
`
`1
`
`

`
`record at the address provided below:
`
`Clifford A. Ulrich, Esq.
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`One Broadway
`
`New York, NY l0004.
`
`Date:
`
`June 1, 2015
`
`Raymond A. Joao, Esq.
`122 Bellevue Place
`
`Yonkers, New York 10703
`
`Tel. (914) 969-2992
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Raymond A. Joao/
`Raymond A. Joao
`Reg. No. 35,907
`
`2
`
`

`
`REEXAM-7397363
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Reexamination of: PATENT OF RAYMOND A. JOAO
`
`Patent No.: 7,397,363
`
`For: CONTROL AND/OR MONITORING APPARATUS AND METHOD
`
`Control No.: 90/013,303
`
`Issue Date: JULY 8, 2008
`
`Examiner: SAMUEL G. RIMELL
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`Conf1rrnationNo.: 3482
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`Sir:
`
`This is a Response To Office Action in response to the Office Action, mailed
`
`March 31, 2015, in the above-referenced Ex Parte Reexamination of Claim 21 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,397,363 (the '363 Patent), wherein the Examiner rejected Claim 21 in View of
`
`prior art references. The Patent Owner respectfully traverses the rejection of Claim 21.
`
`Based on the following Remarks, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that Claim
`
`21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 is patentable over the prior art.
`
`3
`
`

`
`REMARKS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 contains 88 claims. Claim 21 is subject to
`
`reexamination. Claims l-20 and 22-88 are not subject to reexamination. The Examiner
`
`has rejected Claim 2l in View of prior art references. In View of the following Remarks,
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 2l is patentable oVer the prior art.
`
`I. THE 35 U.S.C. §103 REJECTION:
`
`The Examiner asserts that Claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,363 (the '363 Patent)
`
`is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §l03(a) as being unpatentable oVer Spaur, et al., U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,732,074 (Spaur) in View of Kniffin, et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,072,402
`
`(Kniffin). The Patent Owner respectfully traverses the Examiner's rejection of Claim 2l.
`
`In View of the following Remarks, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that the
`
`Examiner has failed to establish a primafacie case of obViousness, as required under 35
`
`U.S.C. §l03, and that Claim 2l of the '363 Patent is patentable oVer the prior art.
`
`IA. The Examiner's Rejection Of Claim 21 Over Spaur In View Of Kniffin:
`
`The Examiner, at pages 2 through 8 of the Office Action, mailed March 3l, 2015,
`
`sets forth his rationale for rejecting Claim 2l of the '3 63 Patent oVer Spaur in View of
`
`Kniffin.
`
`As best understood by the Patent Owner, the Examiner seeks to reconfigure the
`
`Various components of the Spaur system, as depicted in Fig. 2 of Spaur, in order to group
`
`them into: 1) a "lst DeVice"; 2) a "2nd DeVice"; and 3) a "3rd DeVice" (see page 3 of the
`
`Office Action, mailed March 3 l, 20l5). The Examiner contends that the "lst DeVice"
`
`4
`
`

`
`corresponds to the following components of the Spaur system: 10a (remote station 10a), 64
`
`(modem 64), 68 (Internet 68), 30 (controller 30 which is "contained in the vehicle" see,
`
`Spaur at Col. 7, lines 23-25), and 122 (controller area network control unit 122, which is
`
`also located at the vehicle and is a component of the CAN l24 also located at the vehicle,
`
`see Spaur at Col. l0, lines 23-50 and Fig. 2). The Examiner further contends that the "2nd
`
`Device" corresponds to the following components of the Spaur system: 80 (cellular phone
`
`80 "which is contained in the vehicle", see Spaur at Col. 7, lines 40-47 and Fig. 2), 82
`
`(vehicle CDPD network modem 82 which is also located at the vehicle and demodulates
`
`the information received by the cellular phone 80, see Spaur at Col. 7, lines 50-54 and Fig.
`
`2), and 84 (phone interface 84 which "links the cellular phone 80 with the controller 30",
`
`see Spaur at Col. 7, lines 54-58 and Fig. 2, and thus, is also located at the vehicle). The
`
`Examiner also contends that the "3rd Device" corresponds to vehicle devices 50a to 50n in
`
`the Spaur system (see page 3 of the Office Action, mailed March 31, 2015).
`
`The Examiner then, at page 5, lines l-3, of the Office Action, mailed March 3l,
`
`2015, stated that: "Kniffin et al at FIG 3 teaches a first processing device (clearing house
`
`database and transmission system 54) and second processing device (mobile phone 52) as
`
`being remote from the lock mechanism."
`
`The Examiner further stated:
`
`"This configuration allows a user to be granted authorization for direct
`access to the lock system by use of the remote telephone (Kniffin et al at
`col. 7, lines 16-3 0). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary
`skill in the art to modify Spaur et alto allow its first and second devices to
`be connected remotely to the devices on the vehicle, whereby such
`configuration allows the user to advantageously gain direct access to the
`devices on the vehicle (Kniffin et al at col. 7, lines 16-30)". See Office
`Action, mailed March 3 l, 2015 at page 5, lines 3-8.
`
`As provided herein, the Patent Owner respectfully traverses the Examiner's
`
`5
`
`

`
`rejection of Claim 21 over Spaur in view of Kniffin on the following grounds: 1) the
`
`Examiner's proposed modification of Spaur in View of Kniffin would render the Spaur
`
`system inoperable; 2) the Examiner's proposed modification of Spaur in view of Kniffin
`
`would still fail to disclose, teach, or suggest, a second processing device having all of the
`
`recited limitations of the recited second processing device of Claim 21; 3) one skilled in
`
`the art would not look to Kniffin for any modification of the Spaur system; and 4) the
`
`Examiner has not articulated a reason supported by some rational underpinning for
`
`combining the teachings of Spaur and Kniffin and thus the Examiner has failed to make a
`
`primafacie case of obviousness with regards to Claim 21.
`
`IB. Claim 21 Of The '363 Patent Is Patentable Over Spaur In View Of Kniffin And Is
`Patentable Over The Prior Art:
`
`For at least the reasons set forth herein, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that
`
`Claim 21 of the '363 Patent is patentable over Spaur in view of Kniffin and is patentable
`
`over the prior art.
`
`1) The Examiner's Proposed Modification Of Spaur In View Of Kniffin
`Would Render The Spaur System Inoperable:
`
`If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified
`
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make
`
`the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`The proposed modification of Spaur in view of Kniffin would render the Spaur
`
`system inoperable, and thus unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The system disclosed
`
`in Spaur does not include three separate processing devices in which two of the three
`
`processing devices are remote from the vehicle. As best understood by the Patent Owner,
`
`6
`
`

`
`the Spaur system is designed to provide a mobile portable wireless communication system
`
`which allows any one or more users of a remote station to access a vehicle via the Internet.
`
`As best understood by the Patent Owner, any information transmitted from the remote
`
`station 10a is transmitted to, and received by, the cellular phone 80 which is specifically
`
`described as being located at the vehicle. Furthermore, the Spaur system relies on the
`
`cellular phone 80 being intentionally integrated into the vehicle. Information is then
`
`provided to the controller 30 which is also specifically described as being located at the
`
`vehicle. Vehicle devices 50a - 50n can be controlled via the controller 30 and the
`
`controller area network control unit l22, which is also located at the vehicle.
`
`As best understood by the Patent Owner, it is essential that controller 30 be located
`
`at the vehicle. Spaur, at Col. 6, lines ll-50 specifically provides:
`
`"The wireless device l8 bi-directionally communicates with a controller 30
`contained in the vehicle through a network protocol converter 26 using a
`wireless device interface 22. .
`.
`.
`. In the embodiment to be described in
`
`greater detail herein, the network protocol converter 26 includes a TCP/IP stack
`which can be part of the controller 30 so that the controller 30 is also
`definable or can be referred to as a controller/network protocol converter 30.
`The controller 30 is responsible for a number of functions related to
`understanding and acting on information received from one or more remote
`
`stations l0 obtaining and responding to requested information and operatively
`functioning with information including data available from other elements
`
`in the vehicle. In that regard the controller 30 communicates with a
`controller interface 34 that electrically links the controller 30 with a vehicle
`standardized network 40. The vehicle standardized network 40 includes a
`
`controller unit 44 that provides appropriate message and data handling
`functions associated with sending and receiving information including data
`from each of a plurality of physical vehicle devices 50 that are operatively
`connected to a bus 46 of the vehicle standardized network 40. Like the remote
`
`standardized network l4, the vehicle standardized network 40 is an established
`
`and previously developed network that interfaces with components in a vehicle,
`such as engine related components in order to provide desired or requested data
`concerning the operations or status of these components."(emphasis added).
`
`In view of the above, any modification of Spaur that would include removing the
`
`7
`
`

`
`controller 30 fiom the vehicle would result in the Spaur system being rendered inoperable.
`
`Without the controller 30 being located at the vehicle, there would be no controller at the
`
`vehicle which could perform all of the numerous functions specifically described in Spaur
`
`as being performed by the controller 30.
`
`As best understood by the Patent Owner, it is also essential that the controller area
`
`network control unit l22 also be located at the vehicle. Spaur, at Col. l4, lines 4-9
`
`specifically provides:
`
`"At block 300, vehicle positioning data is available fiom one of the vehicle
`devices 50, which might be a GPS. On a requested or regular input scheme,
`such vehicle device data is sent to the CAN bus 126 at block 304. The CAN
`
`controller l22 is responsible for controlling the receipt and transmitting of such
`data to the controller 30 at block 308." (emphasis added).
`
`In view of the above, the vehicle positioning data is available from a vehicle device
`
`50 at the vehicle. The CAN controller l22 "is responsible for controlling the receipt and
`
`transmitting of such data to the controller 30" and, as noted herein, the controller 30 is
`
`located at the vehicle.
`
`In view of the above, any modification of Spaur that would include removing the
`
`CAN controller 122 fiom the vehicle would result in the Spaur system being rendered
`
`inoperable. Without the CAN controller 122 being located at the vehicle, there would be
`
`no controller at the vehicle which could control the receipt and transmitting of the vehicle
`
`positioning data to any device at the vehicle.
`
`As best understood by the Patent Owner, it is also essential that the cellular phone
`
`80, the vehicle CDPD network modem 82, and the phone interface 84, also be located at
`
`the vehicle. Spaur, at Col. 7, lines 40-54 specifically provides:
`
`"The Internet 68 operatively communicates with a standardized network
`
`8
`
`

`
`transmission protocol that permits information to be bi-directionally
`communicated over the airlink and, in one embodiment, includes a remote
`CDPD network modem 76 which prepares the information in a conventionally
`acceptable manner for transmission and communication with a cellular phone
`80 which is contained in the vehicle. The cellular phone 80 can be any selected
`one of a number of conventional cellular phones that have the capabilit_v_ of
`properly communicating with the desired formatted or arranged information. In
`the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 2, the cellular phone 80 is operatively
`associated with a vehicle CDPD network modem 82 that demodulates the
`
`received information so that it is acceptable for further handling or processing.
`A phone interface 84 links the cellular phone 80 with the controller 30 and is,
`preferably, configured to work with a variety of cellular phones having
`differing output connections and/or arrangements of output connections. In that
`regard, the phone interface 84 is useful in providing a proper batteLv_ charging
`function for the cellular phone 80, assisting in the identification of the particular
`cellular phone 80 that is being utilized, and establishing the correct electrical
`connections for passage or communication of the signals between the cellular
`phone 80 and the controller 30." (emphasis added).
`
`In view of the above, any modification of Spaur that would include removing the
`
`cellular phone 80, the vehicle CDPD network modem 82, and the phone interface 84, from
`
`the vehicle would result in the Spaur system being rendered inoperable. Without the
`
`cellular phone 80 being located at the vehicle, there would simply be no means by which
`
`any outside processing device could communicate with the vehicle. Thus, the Spaur
`
`system, modified such that the cellular phone 80 is located remote from the vehicle, would
`
`be rendered inoperable. Without the vehicle CDPD network modem 82 being located at
`
`the vehicle, there would be no device at the vehicle for demodulating the information
`
`received from any processing device so that it is acceptable for further handling or
`
`processing. Thus, the Spaur system, modified such that the vehicle CDPD network
`
`modem 82 is located remote from the vehicle, would be rendered inoperable. Lastly,
`
`without the phone interface 84 being located at the vehicle, there would be no interface
`
`device for establishing the correct electrical connections for passage or communication of
`
`9
`
`

`
`the signals between the cellular phone 80 and any processing device at the vehicle.
`
`Not only would the Examiner's proposed modification of the Spaur system, by
`
`combining certain Spaur system components and placing some of those combined system
`
`components remote from the vehicle, render the Spaur system inoperable (as set forth
`
`above), such would also run counter to the teachings of Claim 21 of the '363 Patent, which
`
`requires a second processing device to first processing device to third processing device
`
`communication sequence. The Examiner's proposed "lst Device" combines multiple
`
`devices, some that Spaur teaches are located remote from the vehicle, and others that Spaur
`
`teaches are located at the vehicle, with some of these devices and, in particular, the remote
`
`station l0a, the modem 64, and the Internet 68 having no direct connection or no direct
`
`interaction with any of the controller 30 or the CAN controller l22. To be clear, there is
`
`simply no support for the proposed combination of the Spaur system components 10a, 64,
`
`68, 30, and 122 being combined to form the proposed "lst Device". Further, as noted
`
`above, such a reconfiguration of the Spaur system components would render Spaur
`
`inoperable. There would, for example, be no processing device remaining in the Spaur
`
`system for interacting with the vehicle devices 50a-50n (see the Examiner's Figure on page
`
`3 of the Office Action, mailed March 31, 2015).
`
`The Examiner's proposed "2nd Device" also renders Spaur inoperable. By
`
`"pulling" the cellular phone 80 out of, or from, the vehicle and placing it at a location
`
`remote from the vehicle, there would be no means for any processing device to
`
`communicate with any device at the vehicle. Further, Claim 2l of the '3 63 Patent
`
`specifically requires that the recited "second processing device" generate the recited
`
`"second signal" or transmit the recited "second signal", which recited "second signal"
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`
`contains information "to at least one of activate, de-activate, disable re-enable, and control
`
`an operation of, the at least one of a vehicle system, a vehicle equipment system, a vehicle
`
`component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and a vehicle appliance" and which
`
`recited "second signal" is transmitted to the recited "first processing device". The recited
`
`"first processing device" of Claim 21 generates the recited "first signal" or transmits the
`
`recited "first signal" in response to the recited "second signal". None of the cellular phone
`
`80, the vehicle CDPD network modem 82, or the phone interface 84 (the Examiner's
`
`proposed "2nd Device" of Spaur), perform, or are described as being capable of
`
`performing, the above-described recited and claimed functionality of the recited "second
`
`processing device". Therefore, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Examiner's
`
`proposed "2nd Device" of Spaur cannot serve as the recited "second processing device" of
`
`Claim 21 .
`
`In view of the foregoing, the EXaminer’s proposed modification of Spaur, so as to
`
`reconfigure the components of Spaur, and the Examiner's reliance on the teachings of
`
`Kniffin to remove components of the Spaur system from the vehicle, would render Spaur
`
`inoperable and, therefore, would be untenable and improper.
`
`2) The Examiner's Proposed Modification Of Spaur In View Of Kniffin
`Would Still Fail To Disclose, Teach, Or Suggest, A Second Processing
`Device Having All Of The Recited Limitations Of The Recited Second
`Processing Device Of Claim 21:
`
`Assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner could remove certain components of the
`
`Spaur system from the vehicle so as to locate the components of the Examiner's asserted
`
`"lst Device" and "2nd Device" at a location remote from the vehicle, the resulting system
`
`would still fail to disclose, teach, or suggest, the recited "second processing device" of
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`
`Claim 21 of the '363 Patent. The combination of the cellular phone 80, the vehicle CDPD
`
`network modem 82, and the phone interface 84, to form the asserted "2nd Device" would
`
`fail to serve as the recited "second processing device" of Claim 21. Specifically, the
`
`combination of the cellular phone 80, the vehicle CDPD network modem 82, and the
`
`phone interface 84, to form the asserted "2nd Device" of Spaur, does not, and cannot, serve
`
`as the recited "second processing device" of Claim 21 because, regardless of where it is
`
`placed, it does not perform the functionality of generating or transmitting the recited
`
`"second signal" which contains the information "to at least one of activate, de-activate,
`
`disable re-enable, and control an operation of, the at least one of a vehicle system, a
`
`vehicle equipment system, a vehicle component, a vehicle device, a vehicle equipment, and
`
`a vehicle appliance", which recited "second signal" is generated by or is transmitted from
`
`the recited "second processing device" and which recited "second signal" is transmitted to
`
`the recited "first processing device". The recited "first processing device" of Claim 21
`
`generates the recited "first signal" or transmits the recited "first signal" in response to the
`
`recited "second signal. To the contrary, the combination of the cellular phone 80, the
`
`vehicle CDPD network modem 82, and the phone interface 84 (the Examiner's proposed
`
`"2nd Device" of Spaur) receives a signal at the vehicle from a remotely located processing
`
`device and conveys it to a device at the vehicle.
`
`In view of the above, the espoused combination of the teachings of Spaur and
`
`Kniffin, at the very least, still fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, and the Examiner's
`
`proposed "2nd Device" cannot serve as, the recited "second processing device” of Claim
`
`2 1 .
`
`In view of the foregoing, the combination of Spaur and Kniffin, at the very least,
`
`10
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`
`fails to disclose, teach, or suggest, the recited "second processing device" and the recited
`
`"second signal" generated by or transmitted from the recited "second processing device",
`
`all of which features are specifically recited features of Claim 21. In View of the
`
`foregoing, the Patent Owner submits that Claim 21 is patentable over Spaur in view of
`
`Kniffin.
`
`3) One Skilled In The Art Would Not Look To Kniffin For Any
`Modification Of The Spaur System:
`
`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. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d
`
`810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959). See also MPEP 2143.01(V).
`
`The Patent Owner further submits that one having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not look to Kniffin for any modification of the Spaur system, because such a combination
`
`would change the principle of operation of the Spaur system. Specifically, Spaur discloses
`
`a system that allows one or more users to communicate with a vehicle over the Internet and
`
`using a remote user station 10a. In Spaur, the communications occur between the remote
`
`station 10a and the cellular phone 80 via the Internet. One having ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention of Claim 21 would appreciate the infrastructure of the Internet
`
`and its improved signal transmission capabilities, as compared to the rf system used in
`
`Kniffin, as being a superior system for transmitting a signal or a message from one
`
`location to another.
`
`The invention disclosed in Kniffin is described as being used in conjunction with a
`
`radio freguency grf) system, a primitive system compared to the Internet. Further, it is
`
`11
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`
`noteworthy that Kniffin expressly acknowledges the problems and limitations of the rf
`
`system disclosed therein. See, for example, Kniffin at Col. 9, line 57 to C01. 10, line 15
`
`which provides.
`
`"It will be recognized that in embodiments employing radio transmissionsfrom
`power-limited devices, the range of transmission may be limited.
`Transmissions may also be degraded by the location of the device when
`transmitting and the characteristics of surrounding terrain. Accordingly, it is
`often desirable to provide one or more conventional repeater stations
`throughout a geographical area served by the system. Such stations receive
`the weak signal from a power-limited device, amplify it, and rebroadcast it to
`the destination station. In a sophisticated system, a geosynchronous satellite can
`be employed as a repeater. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,189,675 and 4,831,619 show
`systems of this sort. Alternatively, path losses associated with transmissions to
`geosynchronous altitude can be greatly reduced by employing a plurality of low
`altitude satellites. Yet another option is use of a plurality of repeater satellites in
`elliptical orbit, as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,854,527.
`
`It will further be recognized that the transmissions from the clearinghouse to
`the receiving units are desirably made redundantly so as to reduce the
`likelihood ofa failed transmission. Systems for redundantly transmitting
`messages in paging systems are well known and are disclosed, by way of
`example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,897,835 and 4,713,808." (emphasis added).
`
`In this regard, the above-described and acknowledged problems and limitations of
`
`the Kniffin system's operation in connection with the rf communication system disclosed
`
`therein, include, at the very least: 1) the recognized limited range of radio frequency signal
`
`transmissions; 2) the recognition that transmissions can be degraded by the location of the
`
`device used; 3) the recognized need for additional communication system infrastructure,
`
`including the deployment of Earth orbiting satellites; and 4) the recognition that failed
`
`transmissions from the clearinghouse to the receiving units would give rise to the need to
`
`make transmissions redundantly.
`
`One having ordinary skill in the art, given the task of having to improve upon the
`
`system disclosed in Spaur in order to arrive at the invention of Claim 21 of the '3 63 Patent,
`
`12
`
`14
`
`

`
`would simply have no need or reason to look to the teachings of Kniffin and its use of the
`
`primitive and unreliable rf communication system disclosed therein, which rf
`
`communication system utilizes a completely different principle of operation than the
`
`Intemet-based communication system disclosed in Spaur.
`
`4) The Examiner Has Not Articulated A Reason Supported By Some Rational
`Underpinning For Combining The Teachings Of Spaur And Kniffin And Thus
`The Examiner Has Failed To Make A Prima Facie Case Of Obviousness:
`
`As provided herein, the Examiner has failed to make a primafacie case of
`
`obviousness.
`
`MPEP 2143.01(IV) states that a “mere statement that the claimed invention is
`
`within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art is not sufficient by itself to
`
`establish primafacie obviousness.”
`
`“‘[R]ej ections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
`
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
`
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”’ KSR,
`
`550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
`
`78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`The Examiner has not articulated a reason with some rational underpinning for the
`
`asserted rejection of Claim 21. Instead, only a broad and conclusory statement has been
`
`provided for the asserted combination ("It would therefore have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to modify Spaur et alto allow its first and second devices to be
`
`connected remotely to the devices on the vehicle, whereby such configuration allows the
`
`user to advantageously gain direct access to the devices on the vehicle (Kniffin et al at col.
`
`13
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`
`7, lines 16-30)" (see Office Action, mailed March 31, 2015 at page 5, lines 3-8.").
`
`Here, the “rational underpinning” appears to be to allow the first and second
`
`devices to be connected remotely to the devices on the vehicle in order for the user to gain
`
`direct access to the devices on the vehicle. However, the Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits that the Spaur system, as it exists without any modification, already allows a user
`
`to advantageously gain direct access to devices on the vehicle without having to
`
`communicate via a separate clearinghouse as taught by Kniffin. In fact, Spaur provides a
`
`system which allows a user of a remote station l0a to access the cellular phone 80 directly
`
`via the Internet, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Intemet-based
`
`communication system of Spaur provides a far superior communication system than the rf
`
`communication system disclosed in Kniffin. There would simply be no need for one
`
`skilled in the art to look backwards, by looking to the teachings of Kniffin, and to
`
`introduce, into the Spaur system a separate clearinghouse used in connection with an rf
`
`system, which rf system is primitive compared to the Internet and which has many
`
`recognized and acknowledged drawbacks, as evidenced by the Kniffin disclosure itself.
`
`Accordingly, the Examiner’s articulated reason for the rejection of Claim 21 simply lacks
`
`any rational underpinning and, as a result, is not sufficient to establish a primafacie case
`
`of obviousness.
`
`In view of the foregoing, the Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider the rejection of Claim 21 and find Claim 21 of the ‘363 Patent to be patentable
`
`over Spaur in view of Kniffin and patentable over the prior art.
`
`14
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`
`11. Conclusion:
`
`In View of the foregoing, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that Claim 21 is
`
`patentable over Spaur and Kniffm and is in condition for confirmation. Withdrawal of the
`
`rejection of, and confirmation of the patentability of, Claim 21 of the ‘363 Patent is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`III. Patent Owner Reguest For Personal Interview:
`
`The Patent Owner hereby requests a Personal Interview with the Examiner to
`
`discuss this Response as the Patent Owner believes a Personal Interview can assist in
`
`expediting this Reexamination Proceeding.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Raymond A. Joao/
`Raymond A. Joao
`Reg. No. 35,907
`
`Date: June 1, 2015
`
`Raymond A. Joao, Esq.
`122 Bellevue Place
`
`Yonkers, New York 10703
`Tel. (914) 969-2992
`
`15
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`M—
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`CONTROL AND/OR MONITORING APPARATUS AND METHOD
`
`RAYMOND A. JOAO, ESQ.
`
`122 BELLEVUE PLACE
`
`— Y
`
`ONKERS
`
`US
`
`9149692992
`
`Correspondence Address:
`
`Filer Authorized By
`
`Application Type
`
`Reexam (Third Party)
`
`Payment information:
`
`File Listing:
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Pages
`Multi
`Part /.zip (if appl.)
`
`Reexam Certificate of Service
`
`Reexam-7397363-
`CertificateOfService-06-01-201
`
`bb50
`5004aa3f70ec26cdeabb74a72ff7e7a04758
`
`Information:
`
`Response after non-final action-owner
`timely
`
`Reexam-7397363-
`
`222107
`
`ResponseToOfficeAction-06-01
`-201 5. pdf
`
`2f4
`4f7d2e02b91ccc2fcfba619f6f1f4404b434a
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`lfa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`lfa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`lfa new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`19
`
`19

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket