`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED ST.-\TlI-ZS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United Slam Patent and Trademark Office
`Addrus: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.0.Bo:_|-159 I
`I
`hlunndnl. Virgina 213Il- I-190
`wunw.ns_pln.9m'
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`95moo,396
`
`FILING DATE
`
`09:23:20-as
`
`30662
`‘I590
`I IIZORWE
`sculcmlwomcamc.
`SU1-1-E 292
`280] MERIDIAN STREET
`BELLINGHAM wa 932254412
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`65|623I5
`
`14933-13!
`
`I593
`
`I
`
`KOSOWSKI, ALEXANDER!
`
`3992
`
`I [.I'2|l|'2003
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below andfor 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. 0410?]
`
`Page 1 of 26
`Page 1 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`”
`
`
`
`-, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Commissioner for Parents
`United Slales Palenls and Trademark 0lTI:e
`P.0.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 223 I 3-1450
`www.uspto.gnv
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`William J. Zychlewicz
`ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
`
`One Metropolitan Square
`St Louis, MO 63102-2740
`
`Datel
`
`I l’ 20' 0:
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL N0. : 95000396
`
`PATENT NO. : 6516236
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER : 3999
`
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTO L-20? 0( Rev.0'.-'-04}
`
`Page 2 of 26
`Page 2 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`Control No.
`
`95000 396
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6516235
`Art Unit
`
`ALEXANDER J. KOSOWSKI
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`
`
`
`The request for inter partes reexamination has been considered. Identification of the claims. the
`references relied on, and the rationale supporting the determination are attached.
`
`1. E] The request for interpartes reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`E] An Office action is attached with this order.
`
`E An Office action will follow in due course.
`
`2. C] The request for inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Attachment(s):
`
`D PTO-892
`
`IXI PTOISBIOB
`
`Eother: Decision
`
`- This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denial by petition
`to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTH from the mailing date hereof. 37 CFR 1.927.
`EXTENSIONS OF TIME ONLY UNDER 37 CFR 1.183. In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26(c)
`will be made to requester.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter panes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand~carry addresses given at the end of this
`Order.
`'
`
`‘ U
`
`S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2053 (DBIOB)
`
`'
`
`Paper No. 20081112
`
`Page 3 of 26
`Page 3 of 26
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING/DENYING
`
`
`
`REEXAII/HNA TION
`
`
`
`Applicatioru’Control Number: 9Sr‘000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DECISION
`
`1)
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-10 of United States Patent
`
`Number 6,516,236 (Brown et al) is raised by the request for inter partes reexamination filed
`
`9!23!03.
`
`References Cited in the Request
`
`2)
`
`A total of 41 references have been asserted in the request as providing teachings relevant
`
`to the claims of the Brown patent. These references are listed on pages 3-7 of the request.
`
`Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested
`The 41 references cited above are separately discussed regarding claims 1-10 of the
`
`3)
`
`Brown patent. Pages 8-421 of the request detail out proposed substantial new questions of
`
`patentability in light of the 41 references cited -above.
`
`Prosecution l-listory
`
`4)
`
`The Brown patent was assignedlserial number 10iO2 1 ,669. During prosecution, the
`
`application was allowed with the following reasons for allowance:
`
`The allowability of the claims resides, at least in part, in that the closest prior art of
`
`record I-lirai (US 5,914,876) does not disclose or suggest, alone or in combination the step ofa
`
`motion control component for generating the sequence of control commands for controlling the
`
`selected motion control device based on the component functions of the application program, the
`‘component code associated with the component functions, and the driver code associated with
`
`the selected software driver, in combination with the other elements and features of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Page 4 of 26
`Page 4 of 26
`
`AMS
`
`Exhibit
`
`2002
`
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`RA V
`
`AMS
`
`IPR2017—OOO48
`
`
`
`Appiication!Contro| Number: 95f000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`None of the 41 references in the currently filed request were previously discussed bi.’ the
`
`examiner or applied to claims 1-10 in the prosecution history of the Brown patent.
`
`Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`5)
`
`Eleven possible combinations of the 4] references cited in the request have been
`
`proposed as reading on claims 1-10 of the Brown patent. Of these eleven possible combinations,
`
`examiner notes that the six combinations below raise a substantial new question of patentability.
`
`For purposes of determination, independent claim 1 is a representative claim. The
`
`italicized sections of claim 1 below were cited by the examiner in the reasons for allowance
`
`discussed above and are utilized to show how specific teachings of the proposed references
`
`create a substantial new question of patentability.
`
`Claim 1:
`
`A system for generating a sequence of control commands for controlling a selected
`
`motion control device selected from a group of supported motion control devices, comprising:
`
`a set of motion control operations, where each motion control operation is either a
`
`primitive operation the implementation of which is required to operate motion control devices
`
`and carmot be simulated using other motion control operations or a non-primitive operation that
`
`does not meet the definition of a primitive operation;
`
`a core set of core driver functions, where each core driver function is associated with one
`
`of the primitive operations; an extended set of extended driver functions, where each extended
`
`driver function is associated with one of the non-primitive operations;
`
`Page 5 of 26
`Page 5 of 26
`
`I
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`Applicationtcontrol Number: 95t'000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`a set of component functions; component code associated with each of the component
`
`functions, where the component code associates at least some of the component functions ‘with at
`
`least some of the driver functions;
`
`a set of software drivers, where each software driver is associated with one motion control device
`
`in the group of supported motion control devices, each software driver comprises driver code for
`
`implementing the motion control operations associated with at least some of the driver functions,
`
`and one of the software drivers in the set of software drivers is a seiected software driver, where
`
`the selected software driver is the software driver associated with the selected motion control
`
`device;
`
`. an application program comprising a series of component functions, where the
`
`application program defines the steps for operating motion control devices in a desired manner;
`
`and a motion control componentfor generating the sequence ofcontrot commandsfor
`
`controlling the seiected motion control device based on the component functions of the
`
`application program, the component code associated with the component functions, and the
`
`driver code associated with the setected Software driver.
`
`L
`
`6)
`
`The SOSAS references Volumes I-VI describe the Specification for an Open System
`
`Architecture Standard which governs the design and construction of a family of workstation t’
`
`machine controllers. The request shows that SOSAS discloses a motion controi componentfor
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrol commands for controfling the selected motion control device
`
`I based on the componentfunctions ofthe application program (Volume S p. 4-5), the component
`
`Page 6 of 26
`Page 6 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationtControl Number: 95t000,3 96
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`i
`
`i
`
`Page 5
`
`code associated with the componentfunctions (Volume 1, p. A-3 and Volume 5 p. 56). and the
`
`driver code associated with the selected software driver (Volume 2 p. 181 and Volume 5 p. C-3).
`
`_The SOSAS reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to
`
`claims 1- l 0 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of SOSAS raises a SNQ as to claims 1-10 ofthe Brown
`
`patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would
`
`consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why SOSAS raises a substantial new question of patentability, see
`also pages 77'-I L6-of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the request for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in SOSAS that were not present in the prosecution of
`
`the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, SOSAS raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10, which question
`
`has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was there a final holding
`
`of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Ability Systems
`
`'i')
`
`The Ability Systems references describe the HPGL and HP-GLt2 controllers, as well as
`
`Indexer LPT software. The request shows that Ability Systems discloses a motion control
`
`componentfor generating the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion
`
`controt device based on the component functions ofthe application program (DEFS 00043017).
`
`the component code associated with the component functions (DEFS 00031041), and the driver
`
`"code associated with the selected software driver (DEFS 00043023-25).‘ In addition, the Ability
`
`Page 7 of 26
`Page 7 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationiControl Number: 95i000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Systems references all relate .to_similar art and it would be obvious to combine them since they
`
`are interoperable together.
`ThelAbility Systems references were not previously discussed by the examiner nor
`
`applied to claims 1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Ability Systems references raises a SNQ as to
`
`claims l-l0 of the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a
`
`reasonable examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these
`
`claims are patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why Ability Systems raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability, see also pages 151-164 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference
`
`from the request for their explanation of the teachings provided in Ability Systems that were not
`
`present in the prosecution of the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Ability Systems references raise a substantial new question of claims l-- -
`
`10, which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent. '
`
`Sorensen
`
`8)
`
`The Sorensen reference describes a ROBLINE system that allows a user to select a
`
`motion control device to control through a task planner andfor an application.-
`
`The request shows that Sorensen discloses a motion control component for generating the
`sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device based on the
`
`component functions ofthe appiication program (Pages 92-93), the component code associated
`
`Page 8 of 26
`Page 8 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationJ'Control N'u.1-nber: 95t000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`with the componentfunctions (Pages 186-187), and the driver code associated with the selected
`
`software driver (Page 20).
`
`I
`
`The Sorensen reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to
`
`claims 1- l 0 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Sorensen reference raises a SNQ as to claims I-
`
`10 of the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`For additionai reasons why Sorensen raises a substantial new question of patentability,
`see also pages 241-246 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the
`
`request for their explanation of the teachings provided in Sorensen that were not present in the
`
`prosecution of the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Sorensen reference raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10, I
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`K193
`
`9)
`
`The King reference describes a graphics engine for use. with the Windows Operating
`
`System.
`
`The request shows that King discloses a motion contra} component for generating the
`
`sequence ofcontroi commandsfor controiiing the seiected motion control device basedion the
`
`componentfimctions ofthe application program (DEFS 00025172), the component code
`
`Page 9 of 26
`Page 9 of 26
`
`A
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationfControl Number: 95l000,3 96
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`-
`
`associated with the component functions (DEFS 00025163), and the driver code associated with
`
`the selected software driver (DEFS 0002516? and DEF S 00024975).
`
`The King reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims
`
`1-10 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the King reference raises a SNQ as to claims 1-10 of
`
`the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why King raises a substantial new question of patentability, see
`
`also pages 275-282 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the request for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in King that were not present in the prosecution of the
`
`application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the King reference raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10, which
`
`question has not been. decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was there a
`
`final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Petzold
`
`10)
`
`The Petzold reference describes the graphics application module used to control graphics
`
`or printing in the Windows Operating System.
`
`The request shows that Petzold discloses a motion control componentfor generating the
`
`sequence ofcontrol commands for controlling the selected motion control device based on the
`
`componentfiznctions ofthe application program (DEFS 00042201), the component code
`
`Page 10 of 26
`Page 10 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`Applicati0nx’Control Number: 951000396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`associated with the componenrfimctions (DEFS 00042I54), and the driver code associated with
`
`the selected software driver (DEFS 00042375).
`
`The Petzold reference was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to
`claims 1-10 in the prior‘examination of the patent as discussed above._
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Petzold reference raises a SNQ as ‘to claims 1-] 0
`
`- of the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable
`
`examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these claims are
`
`patentable.
`
`I
`
`For additional reasons why Petzold raises a substantial new question of patentability, see
`
`also pages 294-309 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference from the request for
`
`their explanation of the teachings provided in Petzold that were not present in the prosecution of
`
`the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Petzold reference raises a substantial new question of claims 1-10,
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Windows NT Operating System [O51
`
`11)
`
`The Windows -NT references describe device driver purposes, design and debugging for a
`
`) variety of motion control devices such as printers and piotters.
`
`The request shows that Windows NT discloses a motion eontroi component for
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control’ device
`
`based on the component functions of the application program (RGBINSPOOOOOOZI , pages 1-1 3),
`
`Page 11 of 26
`Page 11 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`AppIicationx'Control Number: 951000396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`_
`
`‘ Page 10
`‘
`
`the component code associated with the componentfunctions (RGBINSPOOQOOOZI part I, p. l-
`2), and the driver code associated with the seiectedsofnvare driver (i?.GBINSP0000002l part
`
`111, p. 2-2).
`
`I
`
`I
`
`In addition, the Windows NT references all relate to similar art and it would be obvious
`
`to combine them since they are interoperable together.
`
`The Windows NT references were not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied
`
`to claims 1- 1 0 in the prior examination of the patent as discussed above.
`
`It is agreed that the consideration of the Windows NT references raises a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a
`
`reasonable examiner would consider this teaching important in deciding whether or not these
`
`claims are patentable.
`
`For additional reasons why Windows NT raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability, see also pages 320-356 of the request, which is hereby incorporated by reference
`
`from the request for their explanation of the teachings provided in Windows NT that were not
`
`present in the prosecution of the application which became the Brown patent.
`
`Accordingly, the Windows NT references raise a substantial new question of claims 1-1 0,
`
`which question has not been decided in a previous examination of the Brown patent nor was
`
`there a final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the Brown patent.
`
`Discussion of References that Do Not Raise a SNQ
`
`12)
`
`Eleven possible combinations of the 41 references cited in the request have been
`
`proposed as reading on claims 1- l 0 of the Brown patent. Of these eleven possible combinations,
`
`Page 12 of 26
`Page 12 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`AppEicationfControl Number: 95f000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`'
`
`_
`
`Page 11
`
`examiner notes that the five combinations below do not raise a substantial new question of
`
`' patentability.
`
`MOSAIC
`
`13)
`
`The MQSAIC references describe the development of self-sustaining, open-system
`
`machine tools for manufacturing, including an open aspect that provides a communications
`
`ability, modular configuration, and a universal architecture.
`
`With regard to claims 1-10, the requester states that the combination of 12 M~OSAIC
`
`references arrives at the claimed limitations. Specifically for mapping claim 1, the requester has
`applied a combination ofat least eight ofthe 12 MOSAIC references“ While examiner agrees
`
`that many of the claimed features are at least partially disclosed throughout the references, the
`
`references are from disparate sources.
`
`It is not clear how the piecemeal analysis of the numerous
`
`MOSAIC references could be considered important to patentability.
`
`Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the MOSAIC references do not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims_l-10 ofthe Brown patent.
`
`Silififfi
`
`14)
`
`The SERCOS references describe digital NC drives that perform drive control,
`
`monitoring, and diagnosis of a device such as a rotor.
`
`Page 13 of 26
`Page 13 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`Applicationt'Control Number: 951000396
`Art Unit: 3992
`‘
`
`'
`
`Page 12
`
`With regard to claims 1- l 0, the requester states that the combination of 5 SERCOS
`
`references arrives at the claimed limitations. ‘Specifically for mapping claim 1, the requester has
`
`applied a combination of all 5 of the SERCOS references.
`
`The request shows that SERCOS discloses a motion control’ component for generating
`
`the sequence ofcontrol commandsfor controlling the selected motion control device based on
`
`the componentfunctions ofthe appiicotion program (Digital Interface, DEFS0004l200). the
`
`component code associated with the component functions (Open Drive DEFS 00051136-37).
`
`However, the request does not clearly show, for instance, the driver code associated with the
`
`selected sofiware driver.
`
`In addition, there is no specific reason given to combine these multiple references. The
`
`references are from disparate sources and vary in date by up to five years. It is not clear how an
`
`examiner would avoid using piecemeal analysis to read the SERCOS references upon claims 1-
`
`l0 of the Brown patent.
`
`’ Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentablc. Accordingly, the SERCOS references do not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims l~I0 ofthe Brown patent.
`
`Brtlel & Kjaer
`
`-
`
`15)
`
`The Bruel and Kjaer (B&K) references describe a modular, computer-based system that
`
`includes a plurality of components in communication over a network and controlled by an
`
`integrated operating system.
`
`Page 14 of 26
`Page 14 or 26
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`Applicationtcontrol Number: 9St'000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`-
`
`Page 13
`
`With regard to claims 1- 10, the requester states that the combination of 8 B&K references
`
`arrives at the claimed limitations. Specifically for mapping claim I, the requester has applied a
`
`combination of at least 4 of the B&I( references.
`
`The request shows that B&K discloses component code associated with the component
`
`functions (ASTBS page 21), and driver code associated with the selected software driver
`
`(ASTBS page 10).
`
`However, the request does not clearly show, for instance. on motion control componentfor
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrot commands for controlling the selected motion control device
`
`based on the component functions ofthe application program.
`
`In addition, there is no specific reason given to combine the multiple references to
`
`achieve the limitations ofclaims 1-10. The references are from disparate sources only generally
`
`relate. It is not clear how an examiner would avoid using piecemeal analysis to read the B & K
`
`references upon claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner wouid have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the B & K references do not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Cornwall
`
`16)
`
`The Cornwell reference describes factory machines that are monitored and 2’ or controlled
`
`over a network by a management computer including a set of drivers that are used to control the
`
`factory machines by issuing commands to the factory machines through the network.
`
`Page 15 of 26
`Page 15 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`Applicationt'ControI Number: 9St000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`-’
`
`Page 14
`
`The request shows that Cornwell discloses a motion control component for generating
`
`the sequence ofcontrot commandsfor controfling the setected motion controt device based on
`
`the component functions of the appiication program (col. 5 fine 66 through col. 6 line 4).
`
`Although Cornwell does generally teach convening NC control commands to be
`
`translated to specific formats for motion control tools, the request does not clearly show, for
`
`instance, component code associated with the componentfunctions and driver code associated
`
`with the selected software driver.
`
`Thus, there is_ not a substantial likeiihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`_ reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the Cornwell reference does not raisela SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Norton
`
`16)
`
`The Norton reference describes a device driver as a program modnle that is integrated
`
`within an operating system to provide a standard interface between an application program and
`
`an external device.
`
`The request shows that Norton discloses component code associated with the component
`
`functions {DEFS 0002543 6), and driver code associated with the selected software driver (DEFS
`00025406).
`I
`
`However, the request does not clearly show, for instance, a motion control component for
`
`generating the sequence ofcontrot commands for controtiing the setected motion control device
`
`based on the component functions of the application program.
`
`Page 16 of 26
`Page 16 of 26
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationfControl Number: 95!'000,396
`Art Unit:.3992
`
`-
`
`Page 15
`
`The Norton reference describes general application programs, but does not specifically
`teach the details of the claimed motion control program.
`
`Thus, there is not a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would have
`
`considered these teachings important in deciding whether or not the instant claims under
`
`reexamination are patentable. Accordingly, the Norton reference does not raise a SNQ as to
`
`claims 1-10 of the Brown patent.
`
`Page 17 of 26
`Page 17 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationJ'Contro| Number: 95;’000,396
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`.
`
`Page 16
`
`Conclusion
`
`1?)
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(3) will not be permitted in inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to “an applicant”
`
`and not to the patent owner in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 314(c)
`
`requires that inter partes reexamination proceedings “will be conducted with special dispatch"
`
`(3? CFR 1.93 7). Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes reexamination proceedings are
`
`provided for in 3? CFR 1.956. Extensions of time are not available for third party requester
`
`comments, because a comment period of 30 days from service of patent owner’s response is set
`
`by statute. 35 U.S.C. 3 l4(b)(3).
`
`The Patent Owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 3? CFR 1.985(a) to
`
`apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving the
`
`US Patent 6,516,236 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The Third Party
`
`Requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or
`
`proceeding through the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP § 2686 and
`
`2686.04.
`
`18)
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed
`
`as follows:
`
`By U.S. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`AI 1 N: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Page 18 of 26
`Page 18 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`ApplicationJ'Control Number: 95!'000,396
`A11 Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 17
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand to:
`
`Customer Service Window
`
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`By EFS-Web:
`
`Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
`electronic filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`httpszffs1:§rtal.usgto. govfauthenticatefauthentic ateuserloc alep f.html
`
`EFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
`needs to act on the correspondence. Also, BFS-Web submissions are “soft scanned” (i.e.,
`electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
`offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the “sofi scanning"
`process is complete.
`
`19)
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`I Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be
`
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (5? 1) 272-T705.
`
`{Alexander J Kosowskif
`Primary Examiner, Ar‘! Unit 3992
`
`.
`
`/
`
`fl.P
`E3 K .
`
`Page 19 of 26
`Page 19 of 26
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`
`
`970.!“-3am3I (03-03)
`cod
`D
`fipprulved tor use trirnuaii oeiaonuna. OMB oeswoai
`.
`.
`.
`,
`e .‘
`C“:
`u.s. Falenl and Tradernarlr Olfiw: u.s. DEPARTMENT or commence
`900 I‘-‘55|="F'.l'°f‘5 '"l°"““"°" 9'5“-"'-'5'-"9 5‘a‘°"‘e'“ ('95) F"°d
`under the Paperwork Reduction Act ol1BB5.no persons are required to rasporid lo I oollecllon ol' ‘u1\‘orrnal.'inn unless it contains a vafid OMB control number.
`
`Application Number
`
`10021669
`
`'NF°R'“'”'°"°'S°L°9-“RE
`
`Filing Date
`
`5T”E'”"5"*""“""L'°““T in
`
`.
`Examine one Patent Number
`Initial‘
`No
`
`.
`Kmd
`Code‘
`
`Issue Date
`
`-
`.
`I
`,L'
`h
`”a"!‘° of Patemee or Appmam I,t:?i:r:I1:t°l:an;sT:ge:::Eegifant
`of cited Document
`Figures Appear
`
`U.S.PATENTS
`
`'
`
`If you wish to add additional U.S. Patent citation information piease click the Add button.
`U.S.PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS
`
`Name of Patentee or Applicant
`of cited Document
`
`Pages.CoIurnns_Lines where
`Retevanl Passages or Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`C
`ountry
`Codeli
`
`.
`.
`.
`Publication
`Kind
`Code‘ Date
`
`Name of Palenlee or
`A Imam of cited
`Dgflument
`
`Page5'C°'"mns'Lines
`where Relevant
`Passages or Relevan
`Figures Appear
`
`If you wish to add additional Foreign Patent Document citation iriformation please click the Add button
`HON-P1\TENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`
`EFS Web 2.1.5
`
`Page 20 of 26
`Page 20 of 26
`
`AMS
`AMS
`Exhibit 2002
`RA v AMS
`IPR2017-00048
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`RA V AMS
`
`IPR2017—00048
`
`
`
`Application Number
`
`
`
`2001-12-10
`
`
`
`
`
`First Named Inventor
`
`Art Unit
`
`
`
`
`
`Int-‘oRM'ATr0N DISCLOSURE
`David W. Brown
`-
`
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`( Not for submission under 37 CFR 1.99]
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket Number
`
`
`
`
`Examine Cite
`
`Include name of the author [in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of the item
`(book, magazine. journal. serial. symposium. catalog, etc). date. pages{s). volume-issue nurnberts),
`publisher. city and.-‘or country where pubtished.
`
`SERCOS interface. lnc.. ‘SERCOS Interlacez Digital Interface for Communication between Controls and Drives for
`Numerically Controlled Machines‘. September 1991. pp. DEFS 00041290 — 00041654.
`
`SERCOS interface, lnc.. "Digital Interfa
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
