Uzag
`
`Attorney Docket No.: PALM-2910.8G
`
`9
`P0
`.
`De
`Y
`lass Postage and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents P.O Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22313-1450, on the below date
`begnng Ftlrst
`
`0 e- s
`24
`‘ameo 'erson
`l na reo e 'erson
`W
`Iateo
`05/
`/05 Makin the De-sit:
`KATHERINE RINALDI Mgkinothe De-osit: ‘WL//‘ '
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Application of: E. Michael Lunsford, Steve Parker, David Kammer and David Moore
`
`Application No.:09/727,727
`
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`Filed:
`
`11/30/00
`
`ArtUnit: 2682
`
`Confirmation No.: 7522
`
`For: A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESSLY AUTODIALING A TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM
`
`A RECORD ZSTORED ON A PERSONAL INFORMATION DEVICE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL
`
`1.
`
`Transmitted herewith is an amendment for this application
`
`flux“ Transmitted herewith is a response to an office action for the above identified patent application.
`(
`8
`sheets)
`........... Transmitted hereWith are
`........... 0then
`
`sheets of substitute formal drawings
`
`2.
`
`Applicant is other than a small entity
`
`Extension of Term
`
`3.
`
`(a)
`
`The proceedings herein are for a patent application and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.136 apply.
`
`[X]
`
`Applicant petitions for an extension of time under 37 C. F. R. 1. 136
`(fees: 37 C. F. Fl. 1. 17(a)-(d) for the total number of months checked below: )
`
`QLLnsio_n__
`[ ]one month
`[
`] two months
`[X ] three months
`[
`] four months
`[
`] five months
`
`M
`$120.00
`$450.00
`$1,020.00
`$1,590.00
`$2,160.00
`Fee $ 1,020.00
`
`If an additional extension of time is required, please consider this a petition therefor.
`
`(b)
`
`[
`
`]
`
`Applicant believes that no extension of term is required However, this conditional petition is
`being made to provide for the possibility that applicant has inadvertently overlooked the
`need for a petition for extension of time.
`
`05/31/2005 RHEBRAHT 00000003 09727727
`
`01 FC:1253
`
`1020.00 015'
`
`1 of 2
`
`rev. 10/04 kgr
`
`UNIFIED 1013
`
`UNIFIED 1013
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: PALM-2910.8G
`
`9
`P0
`.
`De
`Y
`lass Postage and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents P.O Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22313-1450, on the below date
`begnng Ftlrst
`
`0 e- s
`24
`‘ameo 'erson
`l na reo e 'erson
`W
`Iateo
`05/
`/05 Makin the De-sit:
`KATHERINE RINALDI Mgkinothe De-osit: ‘WL//‘ '
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Application of: E. Michael Lunsford, Steve Parker, David Kammer and David Moore
`
`Application No.:09/727,727
`
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`Filed:
`
`11/30/00
`
`ArtUnit: 2682
`
`Confirmation No.: 7522
`
`For: A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESSLY AUTODIALING A TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM
`
`A RECORD ZSTORED ON A PERSONAL INFORMATION DEVICE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL
`
`1.
`
`Transmitted herewith is an amendment for this application
`
`flux“ Transmitted herewith is a response to an office action for the above identified patent application.
`(
`8
`sheets)
`........... Transmitted hereWith are
`........... 0then
`
`sheets of substitute formal drawings
`
`2.
`
`Applicant is other than a small entity
`
`Extension of Term
`
`3.
`
`(a)
`
`The proceedings herein are for a patent application and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.136 apply.
`
`[X]
`
`Applicant petitions for an extension of time under 37 C. F. R. 1. 136
`(fees: 37 C. F. Fl. 1. 17(a)-(d) for the total number of months checked below: )
`
`QLLnsio_n__
`[ ]one month
`[
`] two months
`[X ] three months
`[
`] four months
`[
`] five months
`
`M
`$120.00
`$450.00
`$1,020.00
`$1,590.00
`$2,160.00
`Fee $ 1,020.00
`
`If an additional extension of time is required, please consider this a petition therefor.
`
`(b)
`
`[
`
`]
`
`Applicant believes that no extension of term is required However, this conditional petition is
`being made to provide for the possibility that applicant has inadvertently overlooked the
`need for a petition for extension of time.
`
`05/31/2005 RHEBRAHT 00000003 09727727
`
`01 FC:1253
`
`1020.00 015'
`
`1 of 2
`
`rev. 10/04 kgr
`
`UNIFIED 1013
`
`UNIFIED 1013
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: PALM-2910.8G
`
`Fee Calculation
`
`4.
`
`The fee for claims (37 C.F.R. 1.16(b)-(d)) has been calculated as shown below:
`
`for other than a small entit
`
`Fee Items
`
`Claims
`Remaining After
`Amendment
`
`Highest Number
`of Claims
`Previously Paid
`
`Present
`Extra Claims
`
`$0 . 00
`
`Total Claims
`lndeendent Claims
`Multiple Dependent Claim Fee (one or more, first added by this
`amendment
`
`Total Fees
`
`,
`
`,
`
`Total
`
`$ 0 . o o
`$0 . 00
`$0 . 00
`
`$360 . 00
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`5.
`
`The full fee due in connection with this communication is
`provided as follows:
`
`[ x ] The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees associated with this
`communication or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No.: 2 3-0 0 8 5 .
`A duplicate copy of this authorization is enclosed.
`
`[ x ] Acheck in the amountof§1.020.oo
`
`[
`
`]
`
`Charge any fees required or credit any overpayments associated with this filing to Deposit
`Account No.:
`23-0085.
`
`Please direct all correspondence concerning the above-identified application to the following
`address:
`
`WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP
`Two North Market Street, Third Floor
`~ San Jose, California 95113
`(408) 938-9060
`Customer No: 45549
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` Matthew J. Blecher
`
`Reg. No. 46,558
`
`2 Of 2
`
`rev. 10/04 kgr
`
`
`
` PALM-2910.86
`
`Patent
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2682
`
`In re Application of
`
`LUNSFORD et al.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`
`Filing Date: November 30, 2000
`
`For: A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR
`WIRELESSLY AUTODIALING A
`
`TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM A
`
`RECORD STORED ON A
`
`PERSONAL INFORMATION
`
`DEVICE
`
`vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`In response to the Office Action mailed on November 26, 2004, the
`
`Applicants respectfully request further examination and reconsideration of the
`
`above captioned patent application in view of the arguments set forth below.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 1 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.86
`
`
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicants respectfully request further examination and reconsideration
`
`in view of the above amendments. Claims 19-34 remain pending in the case.
`
`Claims 19-34 are rejected.
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`103 a
`
`Claims 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over United States Patent Number 6,600,902 by Bell, hereinafter
`
`referred to as the “Bell” reference, in view of United States Patent Number
`
`6,484,027 by Mauney, hereinafter referred to as the “Mauney" reference.
`
`Applicants have reviewed the cited reference and respectfully submit that the
`
`embodiments of the present invention as recited in Claims 19-34 are not
`
`unpatentable over Bell in view of Mauney for the following rationale.
`
`Applicants respectfully direct the Examiner to independent Claim 19 that
`
`recites that an embodiment of the present invention is directed to (emphasis
`
`addedy
`
`An automated telephone dialing system, comprising:
`a telephone having a wireless port for short range wireless
`data transfer; and
`a personal information device having a wireless port for
`communication with the wireless port of the telephone, me
`personal information device configured to control the telephone
`via a wireless communication such that the telephone dials a
`telephone number stored on the personal information device.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 2 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.86
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 27 recites similar limitations. Claims 20-26 that depend
`
`from independent Claim 19 and Claims 28-34 that depend on independent
`
`Claim 27 provide further recitations of the features of the present invention.
`
`Claim 19 recites a system that comprises at least two devices: a
`
`telephone and a personal information device. Claim 19 recites that the
`
`personal information device is able to m the telephone, thus causing the
`
`telephone to dial a telephone number that is stored on the personal
`
`information device. Applicants respectfully assert that the neither Bell nor
`
`Mauney teach or suggest the limitations of Claim 19, alone or in combination.
`
`Applicants understand Bell to teach a wireless system that allows
`
`information to be transferred from one device to another. With reference to
`
`Figure 1 of Bell, a system comprising multiple wireless stations that can
`
`communicate with one another is illustrated. However, Figure 1 of Bell fails to
`
`teach or suggest that any of the wireless stations are able to com any of the
`
`other wireless stations.
`
`In particular, Bell does not teach, describe or suggest
`
`that a first wireless station is configured to control a second wireless station,
`
`causing the second wireless station to dial a telephone number stored on the
`
`first wireless station, as claimed by Applicants.
`
`Moreover, with reference to Figure 2 of Bell, a functional block diagram of
`
`a single one of the wireless devices is illustrated (col. 4, line 42 through col. 5,
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 3 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.86
`
`
`
`line 9). The single wireless device may have various transceivers 20, 21, 22
`
`and a phone book 25A in RAM 25. However, Applicants do not understand
`
`Figure 2 or the associated text (col. 4, line 42 through col., 5 line 9) to teach or
`
`suggest a first device being configured to control a second device such that it
`
`causes a second device to dial a telephone number stored on the first device.
`
`Applicants understand Bell to describe a system for transmitting data in
`
`the form of a "virtual business card” or “virtual calendar information” between
`
`wireless devices (col. 5, lines 17-21). Applicants note that Bell is silent as to
`
`transferring a telephone number between the devices. Moreover, Applicants
`
`, note that the telephone book 25A is located in RAM 25, whereas Bell indicates
`
`that the application 27 that is transferred is located in ROM 26. While Bell may
`
`teach the transmission of data between devices, Applicants respectfully assert
`
`that Bell does not teach, describe or suggest that the data transmitted from one
`
`device controls the operation of the receiving device in any way.
`
`In contrast, Applicants have claimed more than transference of
`
`information between one device and another. Applicants have claimed that a
`
`first device is configured to control a second device to dial a telephone number
`
`stored on the first device. Bell fails to teach or suggest the limitation Applicants
`
`have underscored above in Claims 19 and 27.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 4 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.SG
`
`
`
`As described above, Applicants understand Bell to teach that data may
`
`be virtual business cards, virtual calendars, and virtual notes are transferred
`
`from one device to another (col. 3, lines 29-32).
`
`In particular, Applicants
`
`respectfully assert that the transmitted data objects do not direct the receiving
`
`device to perform any function, such as dialing a telephone number.
`
`As described in accordance with Figure 3 of Bell, users of both the first
`
`wireless station and the second wireless station must authenticate the data by
`
`entering a PIN (col. 5, line 65 through col. 6, line 35). Specifically, in order to
`
`receive the data object, a user of the second (receiving) wireless station must
`
`take action. The first wireless station is not able to control the second wireless
`
`station to receive the data object, a user of the second wireless station must
`
`authenticate the data object. Accordingly, by teaching that the first wireless
`
`station requires a user of the second wireless station to receive the data object,
`
`Bell teaches away from a configuration where the first wireless station controls
`
`a second wireless station.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Bell fails to teach or suggest the claimed
`
`limitation of “the personal information device configured to m the
`
`telephone via a wireless communication such that the telephone dials a
`
`telephone number stored on the personal information device” (emphasis
`
`added)
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 5 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.8G
`
`
`
`Moreover, the combination of Bell and Mauney fails to teach or suggest
`
`the claimed embodiments because Mauney does not overcome the
`
`shortcomings of Bell. Applicants understand Mauney to teach a wireless
`
`handsets capable of direct handset-to-handset communication. Mauney, alone
`
`or in combination with Bell, does not show or suggest the present invention as
`
`claimed.
`
`In particular, Mauney does not teach, describe or suggest the claimed
`
`limitation of “the personal information device configured to m the
`
`telephone via a wireless communication such that the telephone dials a
`
`telephone number stored on the personal information device” (emphasis
`
`added)
`
`"Applicants understand Mauney to teach wireless handsets that are able
`
`to memorize each other’s speed dial lists and find lists (col. 16, lines 6-36).
`
`However, Applicants respectfully submit that nowhere does Mauney teach,
`
`describe or suggest that a first wireless handset can control a second wireless
`
`handset to dial a telephone number stored on the first wireless handset.
`
`Specifically, Applicants do not understand Mauney to provide any teaching or
`
`suggestion as to a first device being configured to control a second device,
`
`such that second device dials a telephone number stored on the first device.
`
`Applicants respectfully assert that nowhere does the combination of Bell
`
`and Mauney teach, disclose or suggest the claimed embodiments of the present
`
`invention as recited in independent Claims 19 and 27, that these claims overcome
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 6 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.8G
`
`
`
`the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and are thus in a condition for allowance.
`
`Therefore, Applicants respectfully submit that the combination of Bell and Mauney
`
`also does not teach, disclose or suggest the additional claimed features of the
`
`present invention as recited in Claims 20-26 that are dependent on allowable
`
`base Claim 19 and Claims 28-34 that are dependent on allowable base Claim 27.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that Claims 20-26 and 28-34 overcome the rejection
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as these claims are dependent on allowable base
`
`claims.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 7 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.SG
`
`
`
`C_ON_CL_ULON_
`
`In light of the above remarks, Applicants respectfully request
`
`reconsideration of the rejected claims. Based on the arguments presented above,
`
`Applicants respectfully assert that Claims 19-34 overcome the rejections of record
`
`and, therefore, Applicants respectfully solicit allowance of these Claims.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact Applicants’ undersigned representative if
`
`the Examiner believes such action would expedite resolution of the present
`
`Application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO L.L.P.
`
`DatedzZ ”I We»?
`
`, 2005 M f:
`
`Matthew J. Blecher
`
`Registration No. 46,558
`
`Two North Market Street
`
`Third Floor
`
`San Jose, CA 95113
`(408) 938-9060
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`- 8 -
`
`Art Unit 2682
`PALM-2910.86
`
`
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
