IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent Application of:
`John C. Harvey et al.
`
`Application No.: 08/485,507
`
`Confirmation No.: 5691
`
`Filed: June 7, 1995
`
`Art Unit: 2467
`
`For: SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND
`METHODS
`
`Examiner: Groody, James
`
`AMENDMENT AND REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.129
`
`MSAF
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`In response to the Final Office Action dated August 2, 2011, and Advisory Action dated
`
`November 21, 2011, Applicants respectfully request consideration of the pending claims
`
`pursuant to 37 C.P.R. § 1.129( a) in view of the following amendments and remarks. Please
`
`amend the above-identified application as follows.
`
`Amendments to the claims begin on page 2.
`
`Remarks begin on page 8.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 1
`
`

`
`AMENDMENT TO THE CLAIMS
`Claims and 33-63 are the only pending claims.
`
`33.
`
`(Previously Presented) A method of inhibiting piracy of information or enabling a
`
`presentation of programming at a subscriber station, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an information transmission from a first remote station;
`
`detecting instruct-to-sample instructions in the information transmission;
`
`processing, under control of said instruct-to-sample instructions, a datum at said
`
`subscriber station;
`
`comparing, under control of said instruct-to-sample instructions, selected comparison
`
`information of said instruct-to-sample instructions to a selected sample of preprogrammed
`
`operating information at said subscriber station, said selected comparison information and said
`
`selected sample of preprogrammed operating information being selected based on said step of
`
`processing, whereby a successful match indicates that said subscriber station is properly
`
`programmed and a failed match suggests that said preprogrammed operating information at said
`
`subscriber station has been tampered with; and
`
`performing, under control of said instruct-to-sample instructions, at said subscriber
`
`station at least one of the steps of:
`
`(1) disabling the functionality of some portion of said subscriber station (i) when
`
`said step of comparing results in a determination that said subscriber station has been
`
`tampered with or (ii) when an instruction is executed based on said step of comparing and
`
`said subscriber station fails to respond in a predetermined fashion or within a
`
`predetermined period of time;
`
`(2) communicating appearance-of-tampering information to a second remote
`
`station when said step of comparing results in a determination that said subscriber station
`
`has been tampered with; and
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`2
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 2
`
`

`
`(3) enabling at least some of a programming presentation when said step of
`
`comparing results in a determination that said subscriber station is properly programmed.
`
`34. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said comparing step is
`
`performed under control of a selected subroutine of said instruct-to-sample instructions.
`
`35. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 34, wherein said subscriber station
`
`selects said selected subroutine based on said step of processing.
`
`36. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 35, wherein said datum comprises a
`
`station specific identifier.
`
`37. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 36, wherein said subscriber station
`
`selects said station specific identifier.
`
`38. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said step of performing
`
`includes said step of disabling and wherein said step of disabling includes erasing information
`
`from memory.
`
`39. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 38, wherein a read only memory is
`
`disabled.
`
`40. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said step of performing
`
`includes said step of disabling and wherein said step of disabling includes disabling a decryptor.
`
`41. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said step of performing
`
`includes said step of communicating and wherein said step of communicating includes
`
`establishing telephone communications.
`
`42. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said step of performing
`
`includes said step of communicating and wherein said step of communicating includes
`
`transmitting an identifier of said subscriber station to said second remote station.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`3
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 3
`
`

`
`43. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said step of comparing
`
`results in a determination that said subscriber station may have been tampered with and said
`
`subscriber station performs both of said steps of disabling and communicating.
`
`44. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 33, wherein said step of performing
`
`includes said step of enabling and wherein said step of enabling includes controlling a decryptor.
`
`45. (Currently Amended) A method of decrypting programming at a receiver station,
`
`said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information;
`
`detecting in said encrypted digital information transmission the presence of an instruct(cid:173)
`
`to-enable signal;
`
`passing said instruct-to-enable signal to a processor;
`
`determining a fashion in which said receiver station locates a first decryption key by
`
`processing said instruct-to-enable signal;
`
`locating said first decryption key based on said step of determining;
`
`decrypting said encrypted information using said first decryption key; and
`
`outputting said programming based on said step of decrypting.
`
`46. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 45, further comprising the step of
`
`computing a second decryption key, and wherein said step of decrypting comprises decrypting
`
`said encrypted information using said first and second decryption keys.
`
`47. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 46, wherein said first and second
`
`decryption keys are used to decrypt a video portion of said programming.
`
`48. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 45, further comprising the step of storing
`
`information evidencing said step of decrypting.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`4
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 4
`
`

`
`49. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 45, further comprising the step of
`
`determining if said receiver station is decrypting said encrypted information correctly, and if not,
`
`communicating appearance-of-tampering information to a remote station.
`
`50. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 45, wherein said encrypted information
`
`includes television programming.
`
`51. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 47, wherein a third decryption key is
`
`used to decrypt an audio portion of said programming, and said first decryption key is located
`
`based on decrypting said audio portion using said third decryption key.
`
`52. (Currently Amended) A method of decrypting programming at a receiver station,
`
`said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an encrypted digital information transmission including encrypted information;
`
`detecting in said encrypted digital information transmission the presence of a first
`
`instruct-to-enable signal including first processor instructions;
`
`executing said first processor instructions of said first instruct-to-enable signal to provide
`
`a first decryption key;
`
`detecting in said encrypted digital information transmission the presence of a second
`
`instruct-to-enable signal including second processor instructions;
`
`executing said second processor instructions to provide a second decryption key;
`
`decrypting said encrypted information using said first and second decryption keys; and
`
`outputting said programming based on said step of decrypting.
`
`53. (Previously Presented) The method as in claim 52, further comprising the step of
`
`storing information evidencing said step of decrypting.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`5
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 5
`
`

`
`54. (Previously Presented) The method as in claim 52, further comprising the step of
`
`determining if said receiver station is decrypting said encrypted information correctly, and if not,
`
`communicating appearance-of-tampering information to a remote station.
`
`55. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 52, wherein said first and second
`
`decryption keys are used to decrypt a video portion of said programming.
`
`56. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 52, wherein said encrypted information
`
`includes television programming.
`
`57. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 55, wherein a third decryption key is
`
`used to decrypt an audio portion of said programming, and said first decryption key is provided
`
`based on decrypting said audio portion using said third decryption key.
`
`58. (Currently Amended) A method of decrypting programming at a receiver station,
`
`said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an information transmission including encrypted information;
`
`detecting the presence of an instruct-to-enable signal;
`
`passing said instruct-to-enable signal to a processor;
`
`automatically tuning said receiver station to a channel designated by said instruct-to(cid:173)
`
`enable signal;
`
`receiving enabling information from a remote source based on said step of tuning;
`
`decrypting said encrypted information by processing said enabling information; and
`
`outputting said programming based on said step of decrypting.
`
`59. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 58, further comprising the step of storing
`
`information evidencing said step of decrypting.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`6
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 6
`
`

`
`60. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 58, further comprising the step of
`
`determining if said receiver station is decrypting said encrypted information correctly, and if not,
`
`communicating appearance-of-tampering to a remote station.
`
`61. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 58, wherein said enabling information is
`
`received from a remote source in an audio portion of said programming.
`
`62. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 58, wherein said encrypted information
`
`includes television programming.
`
`63. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 61, wherein said step of decrypting
`
`comprises decrypting a video portion of said programming.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`7
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 7
`
`

`
`REMARKS
`
`I.
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`Claims 33-63 are pending in this application. By this Amendment, claims 45, 52, 58, and
`
`61 are amended. Reconsideration is respectfully requested in view of Applicants' arguments
`
`asserted in their Amendment After Final Rejection filed October 3, 2011, the concurrently filed
`
`IDS, the above amendments, and the following remarks.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
`
`As asserted in the Office Action and Advisory Action, claims 33-44 are allowable, claims
`
`51 and 57 are objected to, claims 45-50 and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)) over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,736,422 to Mason ("Mason"), claims 58, 59, 61-63 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(e) over U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 to Pitts et al. ("Pitts"), and claim 60 is rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pitts in view of Mason.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF APPLIED PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Description of Prior Art - Mason
`
`Mason discloses "a conditional access system for transmitting and receiving scrambled
`
`television signals over-air includes means for addressing each of the receiving apparatus with an
`
`over-air signal whereby to permit reception and descrambling of the signal." Without
`
`explication Mason uses the language "an over-air addressing DBS television encryption system."
`
`At a transmitter station, a session key S is generated and used to scramble an information
`
`signal A, a television signal. Col. 2, ll. 64-68. A second key Pis generated and used to scramble
`
`the session keyS. Col. 3, ll. 1-4. A third key D, the distribution key, is generated and used to
`
`scramble the second key P. Col. 3, ll. 8-10. The scrambled information signal A, the scrambled
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`8
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 8
`
`

`
`session key S, and the scrambled second key P are then transmitted together to a receiver station.
`
`Col. 3, 11. 10-12.
`
`At the receiver station, a customer's individual distribution key Dis used to "decrypt" the
`
`received scrambled second key P. Col. 3, 11. 13-18. The descrambled key Pis then used to
`
`"decrypt" the received session keyS. Col. 3, 11. 19-20. The descrambled session keyS is used to
`
`"decrypt" the received information signal A. Col. 3, 11. 21-22.
`
`B.
`
`Description of Prior Art - Pitts
`
`Pitts discloses "a system for monitoring and accumulating data indicative of viewer
`
`authorized pay per view TV programs at each of a plurality of remote terminals, wherein each
`
`remote terminal is coupled illustratively by non-dedicated telephone lines to a host computer at a
`
`central station." Col. 5, 11. 5-10. TV programs are transmitted via a coax cable in an encoded,
`
`scrambled, or encrypted manner to the receiver station. Col. 7, 11. 3-5.
`
`The receiver station receives a TV program signal embedded with a tag number. Col. 13,
`
`1. 18. The tag number identifies a particular pay per view program and its channel. Col. 13, 11.
`
`17-18. The receiver station processes the tag number and creates a command signal which
`
`causes the converter at the receiver station to descramble or decrypt the TV program signal. Col.
`
`13, 11. 21-26. The pay per view program is then output.
`
`IV.
`
`RESPONSE TO PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Rejection of claims 45-50 and 52-56 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
`
`Claims 45-50 and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) over Mason. This rejection
`
`is respectfully traversed.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`9
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the Patent Office bears the burden of presenting at least a prima
`
`facie case of anticipation. In re Sun, 31 USPQ2d 1451, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A rejection for
`
`anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be
`
`disclosed in a single prior art reference and that reference be enabling and describe applicant's
`
`claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in possession of person of ordinary skill in field
`
`of invention. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`In the Advisory Action, the Examiner argued that Mason teaches encryption keys that are
`
`part of a signal and are processed via digital circuit components. Applicants' had argued in their
`
`Amendment After Final Rejection that although Mason uses the terms "encrypting" and
`
`"scrambling" interchangeably, it could not teach encryption because it only disclosed an analog
`
`signal transmission. Applicants relied on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision
`
`in Ex parte Personalized Media Communications, LLC (Appeal 2008-4228, Ex parte
`
`Reexamination Control 90/006,536) at pages 53-54, that encryption requires a digital signal. The
`
`Board also said that "encryption and decryption are not broad enough to read on scrambling and
`
`unscrambling."
`
`Without abandoning their previous argument, Applicants acknowledge that it can be
`
`argued that Mason teaches encrypted elements as part of its analog information transmission.
`
`But it does not teach the encryption of an entire digital signal transmission. For the sake of
`
`advancing prosecution, Applicants amend independent claims 45 and 52 to clarify that the
`
`information transmission received is an encrypted digital information transmission. This
`
`amendment is fully supported by the specification.
`
`This amendment in no way affects Applicants' position that encryption requires a digital
`
`signal. Applicants amend the claims to provide clarification as an earnest attempt to advance the
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`10
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 10
`
`

`
`prosecution of the application. Therefore, the claims are in allowable form and are not
`
`anticipated by Mason.
`
`Even assuming, arguendo, that Mason teaches an encrypted digital information
`
`transmission, claims 45-50 and 52-56 are not anticipated by Mason for at least the following
`
`reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Claim 45
`
`The Office Action points to Mason's Figure 1 having a decryption circuit 20 that utilizes
`
`a distribution key D as teaching the instruct-to-enable signal of claim 45. However, the
`
`Applicant's amendment of claim 45 clarifies that the instruct-to-enable signal is detected in the
`
`information transmission. Mason's distribution key D generated at the transmitter station is not
`
`transmitted with the scrambled information signal A, the scrambled session key S, and the
`
`scrambled second key P. Mason's receiver station uses a customer's individual, local
`
`distribution key D to decrypt the received scrambled second key P, not the transmitter station's
`
`distribution key D. Therefore the cited section of Mason does not teach this limitation of claim
`
`45 as clarified by the amendment.
`
`Even if it were argued that Mason's scrambled second key P teaches the instruct-to(cid:173)
`
`enable signal, the scrambled session key S teaches the first decryption key, and the scrambled
`
`information signal A teaches the encrypted information. No other element of Mason further
`
`teaches the outputting of programming based on the step of decrypting the encrypted information
`
`using the first decryption key. Therefore, Mason fails to teach all the limitations of claim 45 as
`
`clarified by the proposed amendment.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`11
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 11
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Claim 46
`
`Claim 46 claims the method of claim 45, "further comprising the step of computing a
`
`second decryption key, and wherein said step of decrypting comprises decrypting said encrypted
`
`information using said first and second decryption keys." Claim 46 is not rendered unpatentable
`
`by Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 45. Further, Mason does not
`
`teach the limitation as set forth by claim 46. The Office Action points to the generation of the
`
`distribution key D at the transmitter station as teaching the second decryption key, but the
`
`distribution key D is not transmitted to the receiver station. It is not used to decrypt anything at
`
`the receiver station. It is the customer's individual, local distribution key D that is used at the
`
`receiver station to decrypt the second key P. Mason fails to teach a step of computing the
`
`customer's individual distribution key D. Therefore, Mason fails to teach all the limitations of
`
`claim 46.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 47
`
`Claim 4 7 claims the method of claim 46, "wherein said first and second decryption keys
`
`are used to decrypt a video portion of said programming." Claim 47 is not rendered unpatentable
`
`by Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claims 45 and 46.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 48
`
`Claim 48 claims the method of claim 45, "further comprising the step of storing
`
`information evidencing said step of decrypting." Claim 48 is not rendered unpatentable by
`
`Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 45.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`12
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 12
`
`

`
`5.
`
`Claim 49
`
`Claim 49 claims the method of claim 45, "further comprising the step of determining if
`
`said receiver station is decrypting said encrypted information correctly, and if not,
`
`communicating appearance-of-tampering information to a remote station." Claim 49 is not
`
`rendered unpatentable by Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 45.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 50
`
`Claim 50 claims the method of claim 45, "wherein said encrypted information includes
`
`television programming." Claim 50 is not rendered unpatentable by Mason for the same reasons
`
`as argued above in regard to claim 45.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 52
`
`The Office Action points to Figure 1 having a decryption circuit 20 that utilizes a
`
`distribution key D as teaching the first instruct-to-enable signal including first processor
`
`instructions of claim 52. However, the Applicant's amendment of claim 52 clarifies that the first
`
`instruct-to-enable signal is detected in the encrypted digital information transmission. Mason's
`
`distribution key D generated at the transmitter station is not transmitted with the scrambled
`
`information signal A, the scrambled session keyS, and the scrambled second key P. Mason's
`
`receiver station uses a customer's individual, local distribution key D to decrypt the received
`
`scrambled second key P. Therefore the cited section of Mason does not teach this limitation of
`
`claim 52 as clarified by the amendment.
`
`Even if it were argued that Mason's scrambled second key P teaches the first instruct-to(cid:173)
`
`enable signal, the scrambled session keyS teaches the second instruct-to-enable signal, and the
`
`scrambled information signal A teaches the encrypted information, no other element of Mason
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`13
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 13
`
`

`
`further teaches the outputting of programming based on the step of decrypting the encrypted
`
`information using the first and second instruct-to-enable signals. Moreover, Mason only teaches
`
`using scrambled session keyS to descramble the scrambled second key P, which is then used to
`
`descramble the scrambled information signal A. Mason does not teach decrypting information
`
`using first and second decryption keys together. Therefore, Mason fails to teach all the
`
`limitations of claim 52 as clarified by the amendment.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 53
`
`Claim 53 claims the method of claim 52, "further comprising the step of storing
`
`information evidencing said step of decrypting." Claim 53 is not rendered unpatentable by
`
`Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 52.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 54
`
`Claim 54 claims the method of claim 52, "further comprising the step of determining if
`
`said receiver station is decrypting said encrypted information correctly, and if not,
`
`communicating appearance-of-tampering information to a remote station." Claim 54 is not
`
`rendered unpatentable by Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 52.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 55
`
`Claim 55 claims the method of claim 52, "wherein said first and second decryption keys
`
`are used to decrypt a video portion of said programming." Claim 55 is not rendered unpatentable
`
`by Mason for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 52.
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`14
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 14
`
`

`
`11.
`
`Claim 56
`
`Claim 56 claims the method of claim 52, "wherein said encrypted information includes
`
`television programming." Claim 56 is not rendered unpatentable by Mason for the same reasons
`
`as argued above in regard to claim 52.
`
`B.
`
`Rejection of claims 58, 59, and 61-63 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
`
`Claims 58, 59, and 61-63 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) over Pitts. This
`
`rejection is respectfully traversed.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 58
`
`Claim 58 claims, as amended, "receiving enabling information from a remote source
`
`based on said step of tuning." The Office Action and Advisory Action points to Pitt's receiver
`
`station sending "a command signal via the parallel input/output interface 26 and the data buffer
`
`20" as teaching this limitation. Col. 13, ll. 23-24. But, as is evident from Fig. 1A, the control
`
`signal is generated by elements at the receiver station. The control signal is not received from a
`
`remote source as is claimed here. Therefore, Pitts fails to teach this limitation as set forth in
`
`claim 58.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 59
`
`Claim 59 claims the method of claim 58, "further comprising the step of storing
`
`information evidencing said step of decrypting." Claim 59 is not rendered unpatentable by Pitts
`
`for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claim 58.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 61
`
`Claim 61, as amended, claims the method of claim 58, "wherein said enabling
`
`information is received from a remote source in an audio portion of said programming." As
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`15
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 15
`
`

`
`argued above, Pitts does not teach the receiving of enabling information from a remote source,
`
`much less enabling information in an audio portion of programming. Claim 59 is not rendered
`
`unpatentable by Pitts for the same reasons as argued in regard to claim 58.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 62
`
`Claim 62 claims the method of claim 58, "wherein said encrypted information includes
`
`television programming." Claim 62 is not rendered unpatentable by Pitts for the same reasons as
`
`argued above in regard to claim 58.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 63
`
`Claim 63 claims the method of claim 61, "wherein said step of decrypting comprises
`
`decrypting a video portion of said programming." Claim 63 is not rendered unpatentable by Pitts
`
`for the same reasons as argued above in regard to claims 58 and 61.
`
`C.
`
`Rejection of Claim 60 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`The Office Action and Advisory Action rejected claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`allegedly being unpatentable over Pitts in view of Mason. Applicants respectfully traverse the
`
`rejection for the following reasons.
`
`During examination, every claim limitation must be addressed. USPTO personnel must
`
`consider all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.
`
`In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In order to
`
`establish a prima facie case of obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must
`
`be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974).
`
`That is, "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`16
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 16
`
`

`
`against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970); In re
`
`EdwardS. Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Claim 60 depends from claim 58. Claim 60 claims the method of claim 58, "further
`
`comprising the step of determining if said receiver station is decrypting said encrypted
`
`information correctly, and if not, communicating appearance-of-tampering to a remote station."
`
`As admitted by the Examiner, Pitts does not teach this limitation.
`
`The Office Action argues that Mason makes up for Pitts' deficiency. However, neither
`
`Pitts or Mason teaches all the limitations of claim 58. Mason does not address automatically
`
`tuning a receiver station to a channel designated by an instruct-to-enable signal and receiving
`
`enabling information from a remote source based on the step of tuning. Pitts does not address
`
`receiving enabling information from a remote source based on a step of tuning. Therefore, even
`
`in combination, Pitts and Mason do not make obvious all the limitations of claim 60.
`
`Thus a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with respect to claim 60.
`
`Withdrawal of the rejection of claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pitts in view of Mason is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 33-44, 51, AND 57 ARE ALLOWABLE
`
`The Office Action identified claims 33-44 as allowable over the prior art of record. This
`
`Amendment does not affect claims 33-44. Applicants respectfully submit claims 33-44 as
`
`previously presented.
`
`The Office Action also identified claims 51 and 57 as objected to as being dependent
`
`upon a rejected base claim, but would be otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`17
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 17
`
`

`
`including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicants
`
`respectfully assert that the claims do not need to be rewritten.
`
`Claim 51 depends from claim 4 7, which depends from claim 46, which depends from
`
`independent claim 45. As argued above, claims 45-47 are allowable over Mason and the prior
`
`art of record. As identified by the examiner, the limitations of claim 51 are also allowable over
`
`the prior art of record. Applicants respectfully submit that claim 51 is allowable in its current
`
`dependent claim form.
`
`Claim 57 depends from claim 55, which depends from independent claim 52. As argued
`
`above, claims 52 and 55 are allowable over Mason and the prior art of record. As identified by
`
`the examiner, the limitations of claim 57 are also allowable over the prior art of record.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that claim 57 is allowable in its current dependent claim form.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the above amendments and remarks, each of the claims in this application is
`
`patentable in light of the prior art. Accordingly, the Examiner is respectfully requested to issue
`
`an allowance of this application. In the event Applicants have overlooked the need for an
`
`extension of time, payment of fee, or additional payment of fee, Applicant hereby petitions
`
`therefore and authorize that any charges be made to Deposit Account No. 50-4494.
`
`Dated: December 21, 2011
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Thomas J. Scott/
`By:
`Thomas J. Scott, Jr.
`Registration No.: 27,836
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`LIBW/1808417.1
`
`18
`
`APPLE EX. 1039
`Page 18