`
`©
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 3C@zs1i0wH.usP ZSaC
`
`1
`
`
`
`y
`of deposit.
`
`Deposit:
`
`Making the Deposit:
`
`Making the Deposit:
`
`beanFirstClass Postage and addressedtothe Commissionerfor Patents P.O. Box 1450,aeenae. vA22313,1450, on the belowdate
`Service in an envelope
`tal
`the United
`is being deposited with
`described document
`ot the
`
`
`
`
`
`Date o 12/15/03|Name of Person Julie Williams ignature of the Person 1
`
`
`
`In re Application of: E. Michael Lunsford, Steve Parker, David Kammer and David Moore
`
`Serial No.: 09/727,727
`
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`Filed: 11/30/00
`
`Art Unit: 2682
`
`For: A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESSLY AUTODIALING A TELEPHONE NUMBER FROM A RECORD
`
`STORED ON A PERSONAL INFORMATION DEVICE
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL
`Transmitted herewith is an amendmentforthis application
`
`1.
`
`RECEIVED
`DEC 2 2 2003
`Technology Center 2600
`
`essessneee Transmitted herewith are—_sheets of substitute formal drawings
`sevens Other:
`
`2.
`
`Applicant is other than a small entity
`
`Extension of Term
`
`3.
`
`(a)
`
`The proceedingsherein are for a patent application and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.136 apply.
`
`[]
`
`Applicant petitions for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. 1.136
`(fees: 37 C.F.R. 1.17(a)-(d) for the total number of months checked below:)
`
`Extension.__Fee
`[
`] one month
`$110.00
`[
`] two months
`$420.00
`[
`] three months
`$950.00
`[
`] four months
`$1,480.00
`
`Fee $
`
`If an additional extension of time is required, please considerthis a petition therefor.
`
`(b)
`
`[X]
`
`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.
`
`1 nfo
`
`vou 11/08 Lave
`
`UNIFIED 1009
`
`UNIFIED 1009
`
`1
`
`
`
`C)
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 30@)-2910.WHD.us.P
`
`The fee for claims (37 C.F.R. 1.16(b)-(d)) has been calculated as shownbelow:
`
`Fee Calculation
`
`or other than a small entit
`
`f
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Highest Number
`Total
`Fee Rate
`Present
`of Claims
`Claims
`Fee Items
`Remaining After|Previously Paid|Extra Claims
`Amendment
`For
`Total ClaimsPo620==x 818-00 $0.00
`
`
`independent Claims |__2_fT3=OT =x $86.00 $0.00
`Multiple Dependent Claim Fee (one or more, first added by this
`$290.00
`$0.00
`amendment
`
`
`Total Fees
`
`
`OP? 109 r
`Cite
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Thefull fee due in connection with this communication is
`provided as follows:
`
`“
`Technology Center 2600
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`DEC 2 2 2003
`
`[ X ] The Commissioneris hereby authorized to charge any additional fees associated with this
`communication or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No.: 23-0085.
`A duplicate copy of this authorization is enclosed.
`
`[
`
`[
`
`]
`
`]
`
` Acheck in the amount of $
`
`Charge anyfees required or credit any overpayments associated with thisfiling to Deposit
`Account No.:
`23-0085.
`
`Please directall 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
`
`pate_12 //S/03
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`»Loclbbeuhy
`
`Ronald M. Pomerenke
`Reg. No. 43,009
`
`Int
`
`re 41/08 ber
`
`2
`
`
`
`©
`
`38COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`
`
`O
`
`Patent
`
`t 6
`sm C
`[5[vy
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2682
`
`RECEIVED
`DEC 2 2 2003
`
`Tecrinciogy Center 2600
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`) ) ) )
`
`In re Application of
`
`Lunsfordetal.
`
`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
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`DearSir:
`
`In response to the Office Action mailed October 9, 2003, the following
`
`responses to the above captioned patent application are respectfully
`
`submitted. Reconsideration of the above captioned patent application is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-1-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`3COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`3
`
`
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`:
`
`©
`
`©
`
`The claims remaining in the present application are Claims 19-34.
`
`REMARKS
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§103
`
`Claims 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,902 B1 (hereinafter, Bell) in view of Charlier, U.S, Patent
`
`No. 6,577,877 B1 (hereinafter, Charlier). The rejection is respectfully traversed
`
`for the following reasons.
`
`Independent Claim 19 recites:
`
`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, the 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 (emphasis added).
`
`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 cause the telephoneto dial a telephone number
`
`that is stored on the personal information device. Applicants respectfully
`
`assert that the neither Bell nor Charlier teach or suggest the limitations of
`
`Claim 19, alone or in combination.
`
`Bell teaches a wireless system that allows information to be transferred
`
`from one device to another. However, Applicants have claimed more than
`
`transference of information between one device and another. Applicants
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-2-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`3COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`4
`
`
`
`have claimed that a first device is configured to cause a second deviceto dial
`
`a telephone numberstored on thefirst device. Bell fails to teach or suggest
`
`the limitation Applicants have underscored above in Claim 19.
`
`Figure 1 of Bell mayillustrate a system comprising multiple wireless
`
`stations that can communicate with one another. However, Figure 1 of Bell
`
`fails to teach or suggest that a first device is configured to cause a second
`
`device to dial a telephone numberstored onthefirst device, as claimed by
`
`Applicants.
`
`Figure 2 of Bell illustrates a functional block diagram of a single one of the
`
`wireless devices (col. 4, lines 42-43). 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
`
`— col. 5 line 9) to teach or suggest a first device being configured to control a
`
`second device such that it causes the second device to dial a telephone
`
`numberstored on thefirst device.
`
`In contrast, Applicants understand Bell to teach that an application may be
`transferred from one device to another. Figure 2 of Bell depicts an
`
`application 27 in ROM 26.Atcol. 5, line 5 Bell teaches that the application
`
`27 is distributed over the wireless stations 3-6. Bell further states that the
`
`application is a computer program implementing a multiple link data
`
`object conveying a method accordingto the invention (col. 5, lines 7-9).
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-3-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`3COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`5
`
`
`
`At col. 5, line 17 et seq. Bell describes the application in more detail,
`
`indicating that Bell envisions the application as “a virtual business card”or
`
`“virtual calendar information”. 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.
`
`Further, even if it is assumed arguendothat Bell suggests that a telephone
`
`number maybe transferred from one device to another, Bell does not teach
`
`or suggest the claimed limitation of the first device controlling the second
`
`
`device such that the second device dials the telephone numberthat is stored
`
`on thefirst device.
`
`Bell does state that the wireless device may be capable of making a
`
`telephonecall. However, Bell does not teach or suggest that the dialing of
`
`the telephonecall at one device is controlled in some fashion by another
`
`device, as Applicants have claimed.At col. 5, line 26 et seq. Bell discloses
`
`that a typical situation is a multiple conveyance, for example, swapping of
`
`business cards and calendar information in a business meeting.
`
`Applicants note that in step 34 of Figure 3 of Bell and the associated text Bell
`
`indicates that the telephonecall being placed is an ‘other function’. Thus,
`
`suggesting that the placing of the telephonecall is unrelated to the
`
`information transference. Step 33 of Figure 3 is a test to determineif
`
`information is to be swapped. If information is not to be swapped, then step
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-4-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`38COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`6
`
`
`
`34 is performed, which comprises someother function. Bell indicates that
`this other function may be displaying information on the screen or making
`
`a telephonecall. If the user desires to convey business cards, then the
`
`process of Figure 3 goes on to step 35 to swap the information (col. 5, lines
`
`35-41).
`
`Bell at col. 6, lines 1-38 discusses the use of a personal identification code
`
`(PIN). The use of PINsis to facilitate authentication of “business card
`
`conveying capable links” (col. 6, lines 4-8). However, Applicants do not
`
`understand this passageto be of relevance to the currently discussed claim
`
`limitation.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Bell fails to teach or suggest the claimed
`
`limitation of the personal information device configured to control the
`
`telephone via a wireless communication such that the telephone dials a
`
`telephone numberstored on the personal information device.
`
`Charlier fails to remedy this deficiency in Bell. As such, the combination of
`
`Bell and Charlier fails to teach or suggest this claimed limitation. Charlier
`
`relates to a wireless infrared interface for a communication device.
`
`Applicants do not understand Charlier 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 numberstored on thefirst device.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-5-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`3COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`7
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, neither Bell nor Charlier teach or suggest the
`
`limitations of Claim 19, alone or in combination. As such, Applicants
`
`respectfully request the allowance of Claim 19.
`
`Claim 27 recites:
`
`An automatic wireless telephone dialing method, comprising the
`stepsof:
`a) establishing a wireless communications link for a short
`range data transfer between a telephone and a personal information
`device;
`b) accessing a telephone numberstored on the personal
`information device; and
`c) controlling the telephone using the personal information
`device to cause the telephoneto dial the telephone numberstored on
`the personal information device (emphasis added).
`
`For the reasons discussed in the response to Claim 19, Claim 27 is neither
`
`taught nor suggested by Bell or Charlier, alone or in combination. As such,
`
`Applicants respectfully request the allowance of Claim 27.
`
`Claims 20-26 and 28-34 depend from Claims 19 and 34, which are believed to be
`
`allowable for the foregoing rationale. As such, Claims 20-26 and 28-34 are
`
`believed to be allowable.
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-6-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`3COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`8
`
`
`
`Rage
`
`In light of the above listed remarks, reconsideration of the rejected Claimsis
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`requested. Based on the arguments presented above,it is respectfully
`
`submitted that Claims 19-34 overcometherejections of record and, therefore,
`
`allowance of Claims 19-34 is solicited.
`
`Should the Examiner have a question regarding the instant amendment and
`
`response, the Applicants invite the Examiner to contact the Applicants’
`
`undersigned representative at the below listed telephone number.
`
`Dated:
`
`_/A//S
`
`9003
`
`Address:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP
`
`Ronald M. Pomerenke
`Registration No. 43,009
`
`WAGNER, MURABITO & HAO LLP
`Two North Market Street
`Third Floor
`San Jose, California 95113
`
`Telephone:
`
`(408) 938-9060 Voice
`(408) 938-9069 Facsimile
`
`Serial No. 09/727,727
`Examiner: Milord, Marceau
`
`-7-
`
`Art Unit 2682
`3COM-2910.WHD.US.P
`
`9
`
`
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
