Transaction History Date
`- ( -(--
`q9
`Date information retrieved from USPTO Patent
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)
`system records at www.uspto.gov
`
`'
`
`,
`
`i
`
`i
`,, .
`
`!
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`
`AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No. 3680.0083-01
`
`)) )
`
` Group Art Unit: 2611
`
`In re Application of:
`
`c,
`
`',' .
`
`;f,
`
`j'
`
`Dennis W. CAMERON et al.
`
`Serial No.: 08/124,219
`
`Filed: September 21, 1993
`
`) Examiner: T. Le
`
`For: NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATION
`SYSTEM
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`In response to the Office Action dated May 17, 1996, the response to which has
`
`been extended three months by the concurrent filing of a petition for extension of time,
`
`please amend this application as follows:
`
`IN THE CLAIMS:
`
`Please cancel claim 9 without prejudicer disclaimer of {h subject matter
`
`thereof, and amend claims 1 ad 6 and add new caims 10 and 11 as follows:
`
`1. (Thrice Amended) A mobile unit for transmitting and receiving radio
`
`frequency signals to and from a communications network comprising:
`
`means for receiving a radio frequency message from the network;
`
`a display for displaying said message;
`
`a switch [means for] actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L. P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`.. /
`
`-.
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 1 of 16
`
`
`- ( -(--
`q9
`Date information retrieved from USPTO Patent
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)
`system records at www.uspto.gov
`
`'
`
`,
`
`i
`
`i
`,, .
`
`!
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`
`AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No. 3680.0083-01
`
`)) )
`
` Group Art Unit: 2611
`
`In re Application of:
`
`c,
`
`',' .
`
`;f,
`
`j'
`
`Dennis W. CAMERON et al.
`
`Serial No.: 08/124,219
`
`Filed: September 21, 1993
`
`) Examiner: T. Le
`
`For: NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATION
`SYSTEM
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`In response to the Office Action dated May 17, 1996, the response to which has
`
`been extended three months by the concurrent filing of a petition for extension of time,
`
`please amend this application as follows:
`
`IN THE CLAIMS:
`
`Please cancel claim 9 without prejudicer disclaimer of {h subject matter
`
`thereof, and amend claims 1 ad 6 and add new caims 10 and 11 as follows:
`
`1. (Thrice Amended) A mobile unit for transmitting and receiving radio
`
`frequency signals to and from a communications network comprising:
`
`means for receiving a radio frequency message from the network;
`
`a display for displaying said message;
`
`a switch [means for] actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L. P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`.. /
`
`-.
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`i
`
`C
`
`'
`
`which a user desires retransmission [allowing a user to selectively request
`
`retransmission of a portion of said message] from the communications network;
`
`means for transmitting, only upon actuation of the switch [means], a signal to the
`
`communications network requesting retransmission of said specified portion of said
`
`message and
`
`means for receiving said specified portion retransmitted from the
`
`communications network and for displaying the received specified portion on the
`
`display.
`
`I
`-i
`
`6. (Thrice Amended) A communications network or transmitting ra
`
`fr quency signals to a mobile unit and for receiving radio frequency si
`
`Is from the
`
`mobile unit comprising:
`
`means for transmitting radio frequency signals
`
`taining a message to the
`
`mobile unit;
`
`means for receiving from t
`
`obile unit, radio frequency signals [from the
`
`mobile unit indicating tha
`
`user desires the network to retransmit] representing a
`
`portion of the me age that the user desires retransmission [to the mobile unit];
`
`me ,s for retransmitting radio frequency signals containing the portion of the
`
`-____
`
`_____
`
`____
`
`me aqe to the mobile unit.
`
`4
`
`.,
`
`i
`
`rI
`_
`
`.
`
`..
`
`f.
`
`A method for receiving and transmitting messages at a mobile unit,
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving at the mobile unit a radio frequency message;
`
`displaying said message on the mobiie unit;
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`f ~
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`receiving an indication of a portion of the displayed message for which a user
`
`desires retransmission;
`
`transmitting, only upon receipt of the indication, a signal requesting
`
`retransmission of said indicated portion of said message;
`
`receiving a retransmission of said indicated portion; and
`
`displaying the received retransmission of said indicated portion on the mobile
`
`unit.
`
`iY. The method according to claim,1, further comprising the step of:
`
`detecting errors in the received message; and
`
`wherein the step of displaying comprises the substep of:
`
`highlighting said errors in the message on the mobile unit(V
`
`REMARKS
`
`In the Office Action dated May 17, 1996, the Examiner rejected the pending
`
`claims over various cited references. In particular, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-6,
`
`and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Spraqins et
`
`al.; rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of
`
`Spraqins et al. and Willard et al.; and rejected claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Davis in view of Spraqins et al. and
`
`Iwasaki.
`
`Applicants have canceled claim 9, amended claims 1 and 6, and added new
`
`claims 10 and 11 to more appropriately define the invention. The outstanding
`
`rejections should be withdrawn, and the pending claims allowed over the cited
`
`3
`
`LAW OFFICES
`FINNECAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW,: GARRETT
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`2 02- 408;4.0 0 0
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`references.
`
`Claim 1, as amended, defines a mobile unit comprising a combination of
`
`elements. According to amended claim 1, the mobile unit includes, among other things,
`
`a switch actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for which a user
`
`desires retransmission from the communications network. By providing this switch, the
`
`mobile unit of claim 1. maximizes efficiency in two ways. First, the mobile unit does not
`
`automatically request retransmission of a received message simply because it contains
`
`an error. Rather, the switch must be actuated before any requests for retransmission
`
`will be transmitted. Second, retransmission can be requested of only a portion of a
`
`message, rather than the entire message.
`
`None of the cited references contains any teachings corresponding to the mobile
`
`unit defined by claim 1. For example, no teaching can be found in any of the cited
`
`references of an element corresponding to the switch of claim 1. As previously
`
`discussed, Tsurumi, the main reference cited by the Examiner, discloses a paging
`
`system that allows users to indicate when they have finished reading messages stored
`
`in the pager. The pagers transmit process confirmation signals to a base station, which
`
`then transmits new messages to be stored in the pager. The purpose of this system is
`
`to minimize the pager's memory capacity by replacing read messages with new
`
`messages. No teaching can be found in Tsurumi, however, of a switch actuatable to
`
`specify a portion of the displayed message for which a user desires retransmission
`
`from the communications network.
`
`Similarly, Spraqins et al., Willard et al., and Iwasaki do not overcome this
`
`4
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L. P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`deficiency. None of these references contain any teachings relating to a switch
`
`actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message. Spragins et al., for example,
`
`discloses a system that automatically retransmits a message frame whenever a
`
`negative acknowledgment is received. If a received message frame contains an error,
`
`a negative acknowledgment signal requesting retransmission is automatically
`
`transmitted, regardless of whether the user decides that retransmission is necessary.
`
`Thus, under this technique, there is no provision for allowing a user to selectively
`
`request retransmission of a portion of a received message, as provided by the mobile
`
`unit of claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, none of the references discloses or suggests the mobile unit of
`
`claim 1. Therefore, claim 1, and its dependent claims (claims 3-5, 7, and 8), should be
`
`allowed over the cited references.
`
`Claim 3 should be allowed for an additional reason. As previously discussed,
`
`this claim recites, among other things, that the display of the mobile unit of claim 1
`
`includes means for highlighting errors in the received message when the message is
`
`displayed on the display. The cited references do not in any way disclose or suggest
`
`this feature. indeed, the Examiner appears to openly concede this deficiency. (See
`
`Office Action, para. 4, where the Examiner acknowledges that Davis, Spraqins et al.,
`
`and Willard et al. do not disclose means for highlighting errors.) Nevertheless, the
`
`Examiner insists upon finding this claim obvious without any support.
`
`In doing so, the Examiner has engaged in a clear case of impermissible
`
`hindsight. The Examiner cannot find all the elements of claim 3 in any combination of
`
`5
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`the prior art, and thus cannot support his obviousness rejection. Accordingly, the
`
`rejection of claim 3 should be withdrawn for this additional reason.
`
`Claim 6 defines a communications network, including means for receiving, from
`
`the mobile unit, radio frequency signals representing a portion of the message that a
`
`user desires retransmission. As discussed in connection with claim 1, the cited
`
`references do not disclose or suggest this feature. Accordingly, claim 6 should be
`
`allowed over the cited references.
`
`New claim 10 defines a method for receiving and transmitting messages
`
`comprising a combination of steps. These steps recite acts similar to the recitations of
`
`the mobile unit defined by claim 1. Again, the references do not contain any disclosure
`
`or suggestion of the step of receiving an indication of a portion of the displayed
`
`message for which a user desires retransmission. Thus, claim 10, and its dependent
`
`claim 11, are allowable. Claim 11 is also allowable for the additional reason that it
`
`recites the step of highlighting errors in the message displayed on the mobile unit. As
`
`discussed in connection with claim 3, this feature is not disclosed or suggested by the
`
`cited references. Thus, claim 11 is allowable for this additional reason.
`
`In view of the foregoing remarks, applicants request reconsideration and
`
`withdrawal of the rejections, and the timely allowance of the pending claims. Should
`
`the Examiner dispute the patentability of any of the claims, applicants request that the
`
`Examiner telephone the undersigned at (202) 408-4398 to discuss any outstanding
`
`issues.
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`If an extension of time required to timely file this Amendment under 37 C.F.R.
`
`6
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`§ 1. 136 is not accounted for above, such extension is hereby requested and the fee for
`
`the extension should be charged to our Deposit Account No. 06-0916. If there are any
`
`other fees due in connection with the filing of this Amendment not accounted for
`
`above, such fees should also be charged to our Deposit Account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`i6 ~
`By:
`-/p Allen M. Lo
`S Reg. No. 37,059
`
`~4L(
`
`7
`
`Dated: November 12, 1996
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`INNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`J )
`' 11is '
`7j y
`
`K
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No. 3680.0083-01
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Dennis W. CAMERON et al.
`
`i
`
`i
`
`Serial No.: 08/124,219
`
`) Group Art Unit: 2611
`
`Filed: September 21, 1993
`
`) Examiner: T. Le
`
`i
`
`For: NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATION
`SYSTEM
`
`)
`)
`
`'
`
`C
`
`g
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`;!
`
`,
`
`c
`
`i
`
`Sir:Q
`
`AMEN MENT
`
`In response to the Office Action ated May 17, 1996, the response to which has
`
`been extended three months by th concurrent filing of a petition for extension of time,
`
`please amend this application s follows:
`
`IN THE CLAIMS:
`
`Please cancel c
`
`im 9 without prejudice or disclaimer of the subject matter
`
`thereof, and amen claims 1 and 6 and add new claims 10 and 11 as follows:
`
`1. (Thri Amended) A mobile unit for transmitting and receiving radio
`
`frequency
`
`'gnals to and from a communications network comprising:
`
`eans for receiving a radio frequency message from the network;
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L. P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`202-408-4000
`
`a display for displaying said message;
`
`a switch [means for] actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`which a user desires retransmission [allowing a user to selectively request
`
`retransmission of a portion of said message] from the communications network;
`
`means for transmitting, only upon actuation of the switch [means], a signal to the
`
`communications network requesting retransmission of said specified portion of said
`
`message; and
`
`means for receivinq said specified portion retransmitted from the
`
`communications network and for displaying the received specified portion on the
`
`display.
`
`6. (Thrice Amended) A communications network for transmitting radio
`
`frequency signals to a mobile unit and for receiving radio frequency signals from the
`
`mobile unit comprising:
`
`means for transmitting radio frequency signals containing a message to the
`
`mobile unit;
`
`means for receiving, from the mobile unit, radio frequency signals [from the
`
`mobile unit indicating that a user desires the network to retransmit] representinq a
`
`portion of the message that the user desires retransmission [to the mobile unit];
`
`means for retransmitting radio frequency signals containing the portion of the
`
`message to the mobile unit.
`
`--10. A method for receiving and transmitting messages at a mobile unit,
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving at the mobile unit a radio frequency message;
`
`displaying said message on the mobile unit;
`
`2
`
`LAW OFFES
`:CAN, HENDERSON,
`.ABOW, GARRETT
`DUNN ER, L. L. P.
`10 I STREET, N. W.
`INGTON, DC 20005
`02-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`receiving an indication of a portion of the displayed message for which a user
`
`desires retransmission;
`
`transmitting, only upon receipt of the indication, a signal requesting
`
`retransmission of said indicated portion of said message;
`
`receiving a retransmission of said indicated portion; and
`
`displaying the received retransmission of said indicated portion on the mobile
`
`unit.
`
`11. The method according to claim 10, further comprising the step of:
`
`detecting errors in the received message; and
`
`wherein the step of displaying comprises the substep of:
`
`highlighting said errors in the message on the mobile unit.-
`
`REMARKS
`
`In the Office Action dated May 17, 1996, the Examiner rejected the pending
`
`claims over various cited references.
`
`In particular, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-6,
`
`and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Spragins et
`
`al.; rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of
`
`Spraqins et al. and Willard et al.; and rejected claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Davis in view of Spragins et al. and
`
`Iwasaki.
`
`Applicants have canceled claim 9, amended claims 1 and 6, and added new
`
`claims 10 and 11 to more appropriately define the invention. The outstanding
`
`rejections should be withdrawn, and the pending claims allowed over the cited
`
`3
`
`LAw oF.ICES
`:INNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`references.
`
`Claim 1, as amended, defines a mobile unit comprising a combination of
`
`elements. According to amended claim 1, the mobile unit includes, among other things,
`
`a switch actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message for which a user
`
`desires retransmission from the communications network. By providing this switch, the
`
`mobile unit of claim 1 maximizes efficiency in two ways. First, the mobile unit does not
`
`automatically request retransmission of a received message simply because it contains
`
`an error. Rather, the switch must be actuated before any requests for retransmission
`
`will be transmitted. Second, retransmission can be requested of only a portion of a
`
`message, rather than the entire message.
`
`None of the cited references contains any teachings corresponding to the mobile
`
`unit defined by claim 1. For example, no teaching can be found in any of the cited
`
`references of an element corresponding to the switch of claim 1. As previously
`
`discussed, Tsurumi, the main reference cited by the Examiner, discloses a paging
`
`system that allows users to indicate when they have finished reading messages stored
`
`in the pager. The pagers transmit process confirmation signals to a base station, which
`
`then transmits new messages to be stored in the pager. The purpose of this system is
`
`to minimize the pager's memory capacity by replacing read messages with new
`
`messages. No teaching can be found in Tsurumi, however, of a switch actuatable to
`
`specify a portion of the displayed message for which a user desires retransmission
`
`from the communications network.
`
`Similarly, Spragins et al., Willard et al., and Iwasaki do not overcome this
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`NEGAN, HENDERSON,
`ARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`300 I STREET, N. W.
`SHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`202-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`deficiency. None of these references contain any teachings relating to a switch
`
`actuatable to specify a portion of the displayed message. Spragins et al., for example,
`
`discloses a system that automatically retransmits a message frame whenever a
`
`negative acknowledgment is received. If a received message frame contains an error,
`
`a negative acknowledgment signal requesting retransmission is automatically
`
`transmitted, regardless of whether the user decides that retransmission is necessary.
`
`Thus, under this technique, there is no provision for allowing a user to selectively
`
`request retransmission of a portion of a received message, as provided by the mobile
`
`unit of claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, none of the references discloses or suggests the mobile unit of
`
`claim 1. Therefore, claim 1, and its dependent claims (claims 3-5, 7, and 8), should be
`
`allowed over the cited references.
`
`Claim 3 should be allowed for an additional reason. As previously discussed,
`
`this claim recites, among other things, that the display of the mobile unit of claim 1
`
`includes means for highlighting errors in the received message when the message is
`
`displayed on the display. The cited references do not in any way disclose or suggest
`
`this feature.
`
`Indeed, the Examiner appears to openly concede this deficiency. (See
`
`Office Action, para. 4, where the Examiner acknowledges that Davis, Spragins et al.,
`
`and Willard et al. do not disclose means for highlighting errors.) Nevertheless, the
`
`Examiner insists upon finding this claim obvious without any support.
`
`In doing so, the Examiner has engaged in a clear case of impermissible
`
`hindsight. The Examiner cannot find all the elements of claim 3 in any combination of
`
`5
`
`LAW OF.CES
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`& DUNNER, L. L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`the prior art, and thus cannot support his obviousness rejection. Accordingly, the
`
`rejection of claim 3 should be withdrawn for this additional reason.
`
`Claim 6 defines a communications network, including means for receiving, from
`
`the mobile unit, radio frequency signals representing a portion of the message that a
`
`user desires retransmission. As discussed in connection with claim 1, the cited
`
`references do not disclose or suggest this feature. Accordingly, claim 6 should be
`
`allowed over the cited references.
`
`New claim 10 defines a method for receiving and transmitting messages
`
`comprising a combination of steps. These steps recite acts similar to the recitations of
`
`the mobile unit defined by claim 1. Again, the references do not contain any disclosure
`
`or suggestion of the step of receiving an indication of a portion of the displayed
`
`message for which a user desires retransmission. Thus, claim 10, and its dependent
`
`claim 11, are allowable. Claim 11 is also allowable for the additional reason that it
`
`recites the step of highlighting errors in the message displayed on the mobile unit. As
`
`discussed in connection with claim 3, this feature is not disclosed or suggested by the
`
`cited references. Thus, claim 11 is allowable for this additional reason.
`
`In view of the foregoing remarks, applicants request reconsideration and
`
`withdrawal of the rejections, and the timely allowance of the pending claims. Should
`
`the Examiner dispute the patentability of any of the claims, applicants request that the
`
`Examiner telephone the undersigned at (202) 408-4398 to discuss any outstanding
`
`issues.
`
`LAW OFFICES
`:INNECAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L. P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`If an extension of time required to timely file this Amendment under 37 C.F.R.
`
`6
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`§ 1.136 is not accounted for above, such extension is hereby requested and the fee for
`
`the extension should be charged to our Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`If there are any
`
`other fees due in connection with the filing of this Amendment not accounted for
`
`'above, such fees should also be charged to our Deposit Account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`Dated: November 12, 1996
`
`/p7/ Allen M. Lo
`Reg. No. 37,059
`&
`
`8 DUNNER,L.L.P.
`1300 I STREET, N. W.
`VASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`202-408-4000
`
`7
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`}v , F
`
`.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No. 3680.0083-01
`
`In re Applic
`
`•ation of:
`
`Dennis W.
`
`CAMERON et al.
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Serial No.:
`
`08/124,219
`
`) Group Art Unit: 2611
`
`Filed: SeptE
`ember 21, 1993
`
`) Examiner: T. Le
`
`For: NAT
`IONWIDE COMMUNICATION
`SYS'
`TEM
`
`)
`)
`
`ommissioner for Patents
`n, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`cr
`© 'm
`"
`Qi
`
`m
`)
`M7)
`
`C
`
`PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`Applicants hereby petition for three (3) months extension of time to respond to
`
`the Office Action of May 17, 1996, extending the due date to November 17, 1996. A
`
`fee of $930.00 is enclosed.
`
`If there are any other fees due in connection with the filing of this response,
`
`please charge the fees to our Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`LAW OFFICES
`
`INEGAN,.HENDERSON,
`:ARABOW, GARRETT
`8 DUNNER, L. L. P.
`1300 I STREET, N..W.
`.SHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Dated: November 12, 1996
`
`7/Allen M. Lo
`Reg. No. 37,059 260 NJ 11/20/96 08124219
`1 117
`930.00'
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No. 3680.0083-01
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Dennis W. CAMERON et al.
`
`Serial No.: 08/124,219
`
`Filed: September 21, 1993
`
`For: NATIONWIDE COMMUNICATION
`SYSTEM
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`;Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`Group Art Unit: 2611
`
`Examiner: T. Le
`
`PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`Applicants hereby petition for three (3) months extension of time to respond to
`
`the Office Action of May 17, 1996, extending the due date to November 17, 1996. A
`
`fee of $930.00 is enclosed.
`
`If there are any other fees due in connection with the filing of this response,
`
`please charge the fees to our Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`By: f
`
`?/Allen M. Lo
`Reg. No. 37,059
`
`7
`
`LAW OFFICES
`4NEGAN, HENDERSON,
`-ARABOW, CARRETT
`DINNERLL.P.
`kSHINGTON, DC 20005
`202-408-4000
`
`Dated: November 12, 1996
`
`Microsoft Ex. 1017
`Page 16 of 16
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
