`
`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.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`90/013,802
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`08/29/2016
`
`HARNESS, DICKEY& PIERCE,PLC.
`CE,PL.
`CK
`HAI
`P.O. BOX 828
`BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`8902760
`
`31AE-228691
`
`1005
`
`Lavine
`PRAMS
`FOSTER, ROLAND G
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`02/10/2017
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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)
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENTAND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`379 LYTTON AVENUE
`PALO ALTO, CA 94301
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/013,802.
`
`PATENT NO. 8902760.
`
`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)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, orthe timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`/Roland G. Foster/
`
`Primary Examiner
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`

`

`10. CT Other: cc: Requester (if third party
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/013,802
`
`Examiner
`ROLAND FOSTER
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`8902760
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`AIA (First Inventor to
`File) Status
`No
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`aX Responsive to the communication(s) filed on August 29, 2076 .
`LIA declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`b.[_] This action is made FINAL.
`
`c._] A 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 2 month(s) from the mailing date ofthis 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 accordancewith this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified aboveis less than thirty (80) days, a response within the statutory minimum ofthirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part]
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`CL] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`1.
`2. 1 Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`CL]
`3.
`4.0
`
`Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`.
`
`OOOOWOOOR
`
`Part Il
`
`ta.
`
`1b.
`
`2.
`
`3 4 5
`
`6 7 8
`
`.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims 7-279 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims ____s are not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims ____—s have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims sare patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 7-279 are rejected.
`
`Claims ___s are objectedto.
`
`The drawings, filedon__—_—s are acceptable.
`The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`
`has been (7a) C approved (7b)C] disapproved.
`
`Acknowledgment is made ofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`[1 Some* c)[ None
`a) CAI b)
`1 £] beenreceived.
`
`2 (1 not been received.
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`3 LJ beenfiled in Application No.
`4 CL] beenfiled in reexamination Control No.
`5 CL] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action foralist of the certified copies not received.
`9. L] 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 C.D.
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`requester)
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-13)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20170205
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`Introduction
`
`An Order Granting Ex Parte Reexamination (the “Order’’), mailed November 18, 2016,
`
`found that a substantial new question of patentability (“SNQ’) wasraised in the request for ex
`
`parte reexamination, filed August 29, 2016 (the "Request"), as to claims 1-219 of United States
`
`Patent No. 8,902,760 B2 (the “Austermann” patent). An Office action on the merits is set forth
`
`below.
`
`Issues Raised in the Request
`
`In said Order, the following printed publication formed the basis for prior claim
`
`rejections, which are repeated in this Office action. Pages 19 and 20.
`
`U.S. Patent 5,406,260 to Cummings etal. ("Cummings").
`
`IEEE 802.3i-1990.
`
`Federal Standard 1037C (August 7, 1996) ("Federal Standard 1037C").
`
`U.S. Patent 5,148,144 to Sutterlin et al. ("Sutterlin”).
`
`U.S. patent 4,551,671 to Annunziata et al. ("Annunziata").
`
`RFC 2284.
`
`RFC 1661.
`
`U.S. Patent 4,173,714 to Bloch et al. ("Bloch").
`
`U.S. Patent 3,803,432 to Libby.
`
`U.S. Patent 5,034,723 to Maman.
`
`AM79C97 PCnet™-FAST Hardware User's Manual (July 1996) ("PCnet").
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`Asexplainedin said Order, the following independentclaimsare representative and are
`
`reproduced below, where those limitation found importantto patentability are emphasized.
`
`Clam 1. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`
`a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment;
`
`a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment;
`
`data signaling pairs of conductors comprising first and secondpairs usedto carry
`BaseT Ethernet communication signals between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment and the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment, the first and second pairs
`physically connect between the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipmentandthe piece
`of central BaseT Ethernet equipment, the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment
`havingat least one DC supply, the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`havingat least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow from the at
`least one DC supply through a loop formed overat least one of the conductors of the
`first pair and at least one of the conductors of the second pair, the piece of central BaseT
`Ethernet equipment to detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow
`throughthe loop andto control the application of at least one electrical condition to at
`least two of the conductors.
`
`Claim 73. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`
`Ethernet cabling havingatleast first and second individual pairs of conductors used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals, the at least first and second individualpairs
`of conductors physically connect between a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`and a piece of central network equipment;
`the piece of central network equipment having
`at least one DC supply, the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment having at
`least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow via the at least one DC
`supply through a loop formed overat least one of the conductors of the first pair of
`conductors and at least one of the conductors of the second pair of conductors, the piece
`of central network equipmentto detect at least two different magnitudes of current
`flow throughtheloop.
`
`Claim 146. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Ethernet cabling havingatleast first and second pairs of conductors usedto carry
`BaseT Ethernet communication signals, the at least first and second pairs of conductors
`physically connect between a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and a piece of
`central network equipment, the piece of central network equipment havingat least one
`DC supply to provide at least one DC condition acrossat least one of the conductors of
`the first pair of conductors and at least one of the conductors of the secondpairs of
`conductors, the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment havingat least one path to
`change impedance within a loop formed overthe at least one of the conductorsofthe first
`pair of conductors andthe at least one of the conductors of the second pair of conductors
`by changing impedancewithin the at least one path in responseto the at least one DC
`condition across the at least one path.
`
`Rejections Based on Cummings
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
`
`statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new groundofrejection if the prior art
`
`relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same undereither status.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which formsthe basis forall
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the inventionis not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102, 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.
`
`This application currently namesjoint inventors. In considering patentability of the
`
`claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumesthat the subject matter of the
`
`various claims was commonly ownedat the time any inventions covered therein were made
`
`absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to
`
`point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly ownedat the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`time a later invention was madein order for the examinerto consider the applicability of pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-ATA
`
`35 U.S.C. 103 (a).
`
`Claims 1-25, 27-42, 44, 46-48, 50, 52-56, 58-59, 62-117, 119,121-123, 125, 127-131,
`
`133-134, 137-186, 188, 190-192, 194, 196-198, 200, 202-203, and 206-219 are rejected under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cummings in view of IEEE 802.31-1990.
`
`Claims 14-15, 85-86, and 159-160 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of Federal
`
`Standard 1037C.
`
`Claims 25-26, 62, 89-90, 98-99, 146-186, 188, 190-192, 194, 196-198, 200, 202-203,
`
`and 206-219 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior
`
`art applied to the parent claims above,and further in view of Sutterlin.
`
`Claims36, 61, 111, 136, 180, and 205 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of
`
`Annunziata.
`
`Claims 43, 45, 49, 51, 55, 57, 118, 120, 124, 126, 130, 132, 187, 189, 193, 195, 199, and
`
`201 are rejected under pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the parent claims
`
`above, and further in view of RFC 2284.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Claims 43, 45, 49, 51, 55, 57, 118, 120, 124, 126, 130, 132, 187, 189, 193, 195, 199, and
`
`201 are rejected under pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the prior art applied
`
`to the parent claims above, and further in view of RFC 1661.
`
`Claims30, 60, 105, 135, 174, and 204 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of
`
`Bloch.
`
`Claims32, 58, 62, 107, 133, 136-137, 146-186, 188, 190-192, 194, 196-198, 200, 202-
`
`203, and 206-219 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`
`prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of Libby.
`
`Overview
`
`Cummings teaches technological feature important to the patentability of the subject
`
`independent claims(as discussed in said Order). The specification of Austermann, for which
`
`reexamination is requested, characterizes the Cummings teachings as follows(col. 2, Il. 16-36):
`
`One methodthat attempted to control the hardware theft aspect of TCO is disclosed in U.S. Pat.
`No. 5,406,260 issued to Cummingset. al, (hereby incorporated by reference) which discusses a
`meansof detecting the unauthorized removalof a networked device by injecting a low current
`powersignal into each existing communications link. A sensor monitors the returning current
`flow and can thereby detect a removal of the equipment. This method provides a meansto
`monitor the connection status of any networked electronic device thus providing an effective theft
`detection/deterrent system.
`
`It would, however, be desirable to provide a further means in which a networked device may also
`be identified by a unique identification number using the existing network wiring or cabling as a
`means of communicating this information back to a central location. More particularly,it is
`desirable to provide a meansfor identification that feasibly employs the same cable (and,if
`desired, the same wires in the cable) that normally carries high frequency data communications in
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`In addition, it is desirable to provide an identification system that is easily
`an existing network.
`and inexpensively implemented in an existing network system.
`
`Thus, as admitted by the patent owner, Cummingsteaches the broadly claimed
`
`technological features important to patentability, namely detecting at least two different
`
`magnitudes of current flow through the loop as a normalcircuit (normal current) and an open
`
`circuit (zero current) (network equipment removed). See also the Request, pp. 8 and 9 and the
`
`Chrimar v. Foundry Report and Recommendation re Summary Judgment ("Expert Declaration")
`
`(attached to the Request as Exhibit B).
`
`Cummingalso teaches the 10BaseT wiring includesa first and second pairs of conductors
`
`(col. 3, IL 35-50).
`
`Finally, Cummings teaches a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment(Fig. 3,
`
`computer 12) having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow (as discussed
`
`above) via the at least one DC supply through a loop (Fig. 2, DC power supply 26 andcol. 3, Il.
`
`53-62).
`
`Claim 146 additionally recites changing impedancewithin the at least one path in
`
`response to the at least one DC condition across the at least one path, which is another feature
`
`determined to be important to patentability, as discussed above. However, via operation of
`
`Ohm's law a normalcircuit (discussed above) would exhibit normal impedance while an open
`
`circuit (discussed above) would exhibit high impedance.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`Althoughthe recited term "a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment” can be broadly
`
`and reasonably interpreted to mean any BaseT Ethernet equipment located centrally with respect
`
`to at least a plurality of other devices, IEEE 802.3i-1990 is relied upon to explicitly teach the
`
`standard components of an IEEE 802.3 10BaseT (twisted pair) Ethernet system, including a
`
`central hub with a 10Base-T function, such as a Media Access Unit ("MAU), conductorpairs
`
`carrying BaseT Ethernet signals, and BaseT terminal equipment. See the "Overview"section.
`
`See also the Request, pp. 25 and 26. Moreover, IEEE 802.3i-1990 teachesthatit is the central
`
`BaseT Ethernet equipmentthat has the recited "at least one DC supply.” See Section 14.3.1.1.
`
`See also the Request, pp. 25 and 26.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester's proposed rejections as set forth in pages 46-253 of the
`
`Request, which apply the abovestated prior-art rejections in a detailed manner to each and every
`
`limitation of the subject claims. The proposed rejections are thus adopted and incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`The examiner agrees with the third party requester's rationales for combining the
`
`references, which are categorizedfirst in terms of the Graham inquiries (pp. 43 and 44) and KSR
`
`(pp. 44-46).
`
`Regarding the Graham inquiries, the examiner notes the requester's discussion thereof
`
`raises specific teachings-suggestions-motivations to combine the references. Specifically, it
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cummings with IEEE
`
`802.1-199 in order to conform the Ethernet teachings of Cummings to the Ethernet standard for
`
`twisted-pair wiring (i.e., IEEE 892.3i-1990). See p. 43 of the Request. Regarding Federal
`
`Standard 1037C,it would have been obviousto add the teachings of this reference in orderto
`
`increase the efficiency of data transmission by using shared medium to transmit signals of
`
`different frequencies. Id. Regarding Sutterlin, it would have been obviousto add the teachings
`
`of this reference because Sutterlin explains that the open and closedcircuits disclosed by
`
`Cummings would have exhibited high and low impedancesrespectively. Id. Regarding
`
`Annuniziata, it would have been obviousto add the teachings of this reference because the use of
`
`Zenerdiodes addsthe flexibility to test multi-conductor cable by providing different sets of
`
`breakdownvoltages and thus different meter indications. Annuniziata, col. 1, ll. 34-57.
`
`Regarding RFC 2284 and RFC 1161, it would have been obvious to add the teachings of these
`
`references because the addition of an authentication protocol would haveincreased the versatility
`
`and flexibility of the theft-detection system by allowing unblocking (authorized) and blocking
`
`(unauthorized) signals when a cable fault is detected. Id. Regarding Bloch and Libby,it would
`
`have been obvious to add the teachings of these reference because they are directed to specific
`
`electrical components that would have advantageously implemented the theft-monitoring system
`
`(e.g., the isolation transformer of Bloch would have better separated the electrical characteristics
`
`of the monitoring circuits and the monitoredcircuits) (e.g., a high-impedance voltage controlled
`
`switch used to detect current would have been moreefficient by minimizing current loss through
`
`a detection circuit). Id.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Rejections Based on PCNet and Maman
`
`Claims 1-13, 16-25, 27-35, 37-42, 44, 46-48, 50, 52-56, 58-59, 62-84, 87-98, 100-110,
`
`112-117, 119, 121-123, 125, 127-131, 133-134, 137-158, 161-179, 181-186, 188, 190-192, 194,
`
`196-198, 200, 202-203, and 206-219 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over PCnet in view of IEEE 802.3i-1990 and Maman.
`
`Claims 14-15, 85-86, and 159-160 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of Federal
`
`Standard 1037C.
`
`Claims 25-26, 30, 89-90, 98-99, 105, 146-158, 161-179, 181-186, 188, 190-192, 194,
`
`196-198, 200, 202-203, and 206-219 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above,and further in view of
`
`Sutterlin.
`
`Claims32, 58, 58, 62, 107, 133, 136-137, 146-186, 188, 190-192, 194, 196-198, 200,
`
`202-203, and 206-219 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of Libby.
`
`Claims36, 61, 111, 136, 180, and 205 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of
`
`Annunziata.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Claims43, 45, 49, 51, 55, 57, 118, 120, 124, 126, 130, and 132 are rejected under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable overthe prior art applied to the parent claims above,
`
`and further in view of RFC 2284.
`
`Claims43, 45, 49, 51, 55, 57, 118, 120, 124, 126, 130, and 132 are rejected under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable overthe prior art applied to the parent claims above,
`
`and further in view of RFC 1661.
`
`Claims 60, 135, and 204 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the prior art applied to the parent claims above, and further in view of Bloch.
`
`Overview
`
`The combination of PCnet and Mamanteachestechnological feature important to the
`
`patentability of the subject claims (as discussed in said Order).
`
`For example, PCnet teaches detecting at least two different magnitudes of current flow
`
`through the loop. Although PCnet does not explain if and how the link pass andlink fail signals
`
`are related to a current or to a change in impedance, the Examiner agrees with the Requester that
`
`there is a substantial question as to whether removingthe link entirely ("disconnecting one of the
`
`RJ-45 connections") would result in a link fail indication. Request at 53, 54. In such as case, the
`
`two different magnitude of current flows through the loop would been detected, specifically a
`
`normal circuit (normal current) and an open circuit (zero current) (RJ-45 cable removedresulting
`
`in link fail). Nonetheless, Mametteaches of networking equipmentthat uses an explicit link test
`
`to distinguish a first and second impedancevalues (and thus corresponding current magnitudes
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`via Ohm's law as previously discussed in regard to PCnet) in orderto protect electrical
`
`equipmentfrom theft. Mamet, col. 2, ll. 3-5 and 31-45. See also the Request, p.54. Thus, the
`
`combination of PCnet and Mametteachesthis technological feature, which is important to the
`
`patentability of the claims.
`
`PCnet clearly teaches the 10BaseT wiring includesa first and second pairs of conductors.
`
`Table 4-2.
`
`Finally, PCnet teaches a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment (Fig. 3-1, DTE)
`
`having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow (as discussed above).
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester's proposed rejections as set forth in pages 46-253 of the
`
`Request, which apply the abovestated prior-art rejections in a detailed manner to each and every
`
`limitation of the subject claims. The proposed rejections are thus adopted and incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`The examiner agrees with the third party requester's rationales for combining the
`
`references, which are categorizedfirst in terms of the Graham inquiries (pp. 43 and 44) and KSR
`
`(pp. 44-46).
`
`Regarding the Graham inquiries, the examiner notes the requester's discussion thereof
`
`raises specific teachings-suggestions-motivations to combine the references. Specifically,it
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art to combine PCnet with Maman
`
`because Maman teaches of networking equipmentthat uses an explicit link test to distinguish a
`
`first and second impedance values (and thus providing the corresponding current magnitudes via
`
`Ohm's law as previously discussed in regard to PCnet) in order to protect electrical equipment
`
`from theft. The teaching-suggestion-motivation for adding the remaining secondaryreferencesis
`
`the same as those discussed above in regard to the Cummingsbasedrejections.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`Conclusion
`
`In order to ensure full consideration of any amendments, affidavits or declarations, or
`
`other documents as evidence of patentability, such documents must be submitted in responseto
`
`this Office action. Submissions after the next Office action, which is intended to bea 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 bestrictly enforced.
`
`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 notto parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings
`
`“will be conducted with special dispatch” (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte
`
`reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`The patent owneris reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to
`
`apprise the Office of anylitigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving the
`
`Austermannpatent throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third party
`
`requester is also remindedofthe 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/013,802
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`All correspondencerelating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`as follows:
`
`By EFS:
`
`Registered users may submit via the electronic filing system EFS-Web,at
`butps://efs.uspto.gov/elile/myportal/efs-reeistered
`
`
`By Mailto:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By handto:
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`For EFS-Webtransmission, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)() (C) and(ii) states that correspondence
`(except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for
`reexamination) will be considered timely if (a) it is transmitted via the Office’s electronicfiling
`system in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), and (b) includesa certificate of transmission for
`each piece of correspondencestating the date of transmission, whichis prior to the expiration of
`the set period of time in the Office action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Roland Foster at
`telephone number571-272-7538.
`
`Signed:
`/Roland G. Foster!
`Roland G. Foster
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`Central Reexamination Unit, Primary Examiner
`Electrical Art Unit 3992
`(571) 272-7538
`
`Conferee:
`/S.L.W./
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`/M. F./
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`