WAY=20-04 9:08PM
`
`FROUHCLE FAK
`
`RECEIVED
`CENTRAL FAX CENTER
`
`MAY 2 0 2004
`
`Ts237
`
`P01
`
`R08
`
`OFFICIAL©azrrcraz
`
`CARDINAL LAW GROUP
`
`————SSeee
`1603 Orrington Avenuc/Suite 2000
`Evanston, [Illinois 60201
`Telephone 847 = 905 - 7111
`Facsimile 847-905-7113
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT
`PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
`
`MAY 20, 2004
`
`EXAMINER MELESS ZEWDU
`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`(703) 872-9315
`
`FRANK C. NICHOLAS
`(847) 424.2521
`
`Date:
`
`To:
`
`Fax#:
`
`From:
`Phone#:
`
`Client/Matter No.:
`
`PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`
`# of Pages:
`(including cover sheet)
`IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE CALL 847/906-7191.Env,112AND ASK FOR
`JEMMIFERCRUZ.
`
`18
`
`iT MAY CONTAIN
`THIS MESSAGE 18 INTENDED ONLY FOR THE INDIVIOUAL OR maryTO waiters IT 1S ADDPEREED.
`PAIVILEGED. CONFIDENTIAL, aTroney WORK PRODUCT. OR
`DE SECRET INFORM,
`iW vir 1S EXEMPT FROM
`DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS.
`IF YOU ARE NOT TneINTENDED RECIPIENT. Ona‘aN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT
`RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING Tre seesanee TO TE INTENDED RECIPENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
`THiS MESSAGE IN ERROR. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE ANO RETURN THE ORI
`DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THiS MESSAGE (S STRICTLY PROMIEITED.
`IF YOU navenactrved)
`VAND ALL COPIES) TO us BY rare AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. WE wiLt REIMBURSE YOU FOR POSTAGE
`
`PAGE 1H8*RCV AT202045:06:55PI [asternDaylight Tame)*SYRLUSPTO-EFYRF-13* DNES:A70QN5*CSD:* DURATIONfrm-s:05-04
`
`91 of 164
`91 of 164
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1025 (part 2 of 2)
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1025 (part 2 of 2)
`
`

`

`F660
`P02
`T-237
`FROUECLG FAX
`03:08PM
`WAY=20-04
`Te eR, SEATaCeOp Peg,TeeCi CATaTPOR
`
`goATAOOCLTEERONLE)
`
`TRANSMITTAL
`FORM
`
`Response to Final Office
`Acton Dated Fepruary 19, 2004
`
`fy
`
`After Fina
`
`HbDoooaoao
`
`
`
`The Commansoner 3 nereby authonzed jm change any fees whych May be required. or
`Tease
`Os BySeepetners, © HapoedAesaurd bes 1713. Adupscete copy ofnis
`itidnySubanonCPESS 16a)aferyexuannanof timereqered19enautehat
`yo 5
`5
`tnapaper 4tunatea Pace change ny sesccind toes whch Planes HO OMeheeT
`
`Do
`
`yhereby certify hat ths cormespandence 6 bwng ransmated By facasTwe 16 (703) 872-3315 tw ine Unned States
`Parent ang TrademarkOtfice on mws cae
`
`PAGE.248*RVDAT 5/20/20045:08:55PM [EasternDaylightTime]* SYR:USPTO-EFXRF-19*DNIS:8720215°CSID;*DURATION (mum-ss}:05-04
`
`92 of 164
`92 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`WAT-20°04 09:00PM=FROWCLG FAX T-23T«=P.Oa/18 F600
`
`#l2
`
`cC-
`
`
`
`
`
`Transmittal.
`
`
`
`g) plow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Acpreved foruseDiagh ONSA/2006 OMB0651-0031
`wa Pater onaTraceOfU.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE
`
`
`Pacotcasonungerese
`
`a
` Continued Examination (RCE)
`
`
`
`eeseers
`
`Unwedlon(RCE)under37CFR1.11:CE) of theab
`
`Reset ConcamrRCE,pressan37CPRarayyyaapniaprM8
`
`
`for RCEs inet to besubTwtedwoine USPTO
`
`
`FFL L114) Note. ifthe RCEwproper any prevoutly Sied unertered wgnenamencs ang
`
`SabaBbioc angesencore couchweerwordGow emene epploncuacweceemanate. @
`fied uneNitred amencmenc(s) entered, appecint must request ngreniy of auch
`
`
`
`CONmIGeTed Ay a HuoIneEOn even if ites DOA ui not chwcama
`a oO Prevously submited Wf a fina: Office acuon ri QuietEnding, any emencmenta fied afer ine fine! Office achon may be
`
`O Consaier inearguments inineAppaa Brator ReryBoatprewously fredon
`
`Ts Oo ‘ner
`Entiosed
`o
`
`
`1 AmencdmenyRapy " Oo Informunes Oaciodure Suemen(iS)
`
`
`
`o EsteerenemesenonpsgoniPrinfeEamnneonBoyesti» [2] comer
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`‘Suspension of ACTON on the sbovevdenidien Apphcation ms requesied unger 37 CFR 1 10c)tor a
`Pernod of
`(ORNS, (Pened of eipenuehy anay not eoteed Dimoeine, Fee aides 37 CPA 1 19)) mequeted)
`
`
`‘Tre RCE fee unger 37 CFR 1 17(e} vs neqpared by 37 CFR 1 114 nen me RCE « fied,
`
`
`
`w The Prrectori ReveDyauinonzed iocharge Inefollowingfees, orcreatanyoverpaymens,mo
`Deposa Account No
`a
`1
`wl RCE hee required under 37 CFR 1 17[e)
`vl Eineqnon of ume few (37 CFR 1 138 ang 1.17)
`
`
`(L] Omer
`
`
`>. [7] Cnecx nine amount of 5
`
`—
`c ( Payment by Ged card (Fann PTO20Mencioea)
`
`form,
`TATRA: matecmallen Sn, 08 S010Winemesame peut.Croware itarmauenstealseat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COTCEpONGencEaDENG ureeo Soe Powat vticc poege @8 Ne) Gace mal n
`
`
`sosseieawnsBopREE,ConmaersntsPomc.6.on480,NesanansfasVA23719-3080oftacoetawansavndtomwU.S.PeasAeTrseUmar,
`
`
`PAGE SH18* RCVDATSi20/2004 4:06:55PM[EasternDaylightTime]*SVR‘USPTO-EFYRF-1/3*DNS:3720315"CSID: " DURATIONftm-4s}:05-04
`
`93 of 164
`93 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAY=20-04 03:00PM= FROMCLO FAX «=P Ow/Ie=F699. T-23T
`|
`‘+t (3B
`re
`MAY 2 0.2004
`é lay
`
`coecamgiat
`
`(Date uf Depend
`
`x
`Dale ufSagradere
`
`.
`
`PATENT
`
`(77907310)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re patent apphication of:
`PHILIPPE DECOTIGNIE
`
`Sesal No
`
`09/739,597
`
`.
`
`Filed:
`
`DECEMBER18,2000
`
`For; ANTI-THEFT PROTECTION FOR )
`ARADIOTELEPHONY DEVICE )
`
`eeee
`
`Examiner: ZEWDU, MELESS
`
`Group Aqt Unit: 2683
`
`O FIN
`
`ACT
`
`U
`
`Mail Stop RCE
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`Aleaandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Inresponse to a Final Office action of February 18, 2004, please amend the
`above refercneedapplicution as follows and reconsider the application in light ofthe
`following remarks.
`
`PAGEAB" RCVDAT 5/20/20045:06:55 PM[EasternDaylightThme]*SVR:USPTO-EFYRF-1°3*DNG:8729015*CBID:*DURATIONum-s):05-04 5
`
`
`
`94 of 164
`94 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`WAY*20-04 G3:00PM=FROUCLG FAX POS/I8SSFG08T2037)
`
`——
`
`20, 2004
`Case No: PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`Seria} No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 2 of 14
`
`A listing of the entire set of claims 1-30 (including amendmentsto claims 1},
`18, 21, 28 and 2Y)is submitted herewith per 37 CPR $1,121. This listing of claums 1-
`30 will replaceall prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application.
`
`1.-10. (Cancelled)
`—_
`
`(Currently Amended) A mobile radiotelephony device, comprising:
`blocking means for preventing 4 normal operation ofthe mobile
`radiotelephony device, wherem the normal operation includes a processing of
`outgoing calls;
`lming means for activating the blocking means in response to the mobile
`radiotelephony device bemg inactive during the normal operation afthe mobile
`
`radotelephonydeviceforadefinedperiodofumesubsequenttoamounungofa
`
`linked user identification module inside the mobile radiotelephany device; and
`deblocking means for permitting the normal operation ofthe mobile
`radiotelephony device in response to 4 supply ofa debugging deblocking code to the
`mobile radiotelephony device subsequent to the mounting ofthe linked user
`identification madule inside the mobile radiotelephony device and subsequent to the
`defined penod oftime.
`4
`& (Previously Presented) The mobile radiotelephany device ofclam
`wherein an activation ofthe blocking means prevents all transmission ofoutgoing
`calls.
`
`{
`
`{ |
`
`|
`j
`
`{.
`(Previously Presented) The mobile radiotelephony device ofclaimNy
`‘J.
`wherein an activation of the blocking means prevents all transmissions of non-
`emergency outgoing calls and permits all transmissions ofemergency outgoing calls.
`
`PAGES!18*RCVDAT5/20/2004 5:08:53PM(EasterDaylightTme]*SYR:USPTO-EFARF-13*DNIS:8728115 CSIO:*DURATION frmss):05-04
`
`95 of 164
`95 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`WAY20-04 (09:08PM=FROM-CLG FAK
`1-237
`«=P.OG/18
`F608
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`Serial No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 3 of 14
`
`x (PreviouslyPresented) ThemobileradiotelephonydeviceofclaimNy,further
`
`(
`
`comprising:
`locking means for facilitating an activation ofthe block means by the timune
`
`means,
`
`ty
`
`|
`5
`(Previously Presented) The mobile radiotelephony device ofclaim \. further
`¥.
`comprising
`
`connecting meansfor estabhshing a link between the mobile radiotelephony
`
`¢
`device andthelinkeduseridentificanonmodule.
`}.
`(Previously Presented) Themobile radiovelephony deviceofclamby, further
`comprising:
`locking means for facilitating an establishment ofthe link between the mobile
`radiotelephony device and the linked user identification module by the connection
`means.
`
`(
`4
`X (Previously Presented) The mobile radiovelephony device ofclaimN,
`wherein an international identification number stored on the linked user identificanon
`
`module is stored on the mobile radiotelephony device as dara corresponding to a link
`between the mobile radiotelephony device and the linked user identification module.
`
`(
`(Currently Amended) The mobile radiorelephony deviceofclaim Ny, wherein
`@ personal identification number stored on the linked user identification module 1s
`
`siored ay the debugyiy deblockmsg code on the mobile radiotelephonydevice.
`4
`(
`YQ,
`(Previously Presented) The mobile radiotelephonydeviceofclaim\J, further
`comprising:
`lest meansfor activating the blocking means when any unlinked user
`identification module is mounted inside the mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`PHGE B18" RCVDAT52/2004S655PAI EastemDaylightTne|*SYRLUSPTO-EFYEE-0* DHESA725015*CD;DURATIONpumas
`
`96 of 164
`96 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`WAY=20-04 69:00PM=FROM-CLG FAX T-237)—P.OT/18-F~809
`
`May 20, 2004
`:
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (779/310)
`Serial No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 4 of 14
`
`{0
`(Previously Presented) A method ofprotecting a mobile radiorelephony
`2Q.
`device, the method comprising:
`venfying a user identification module mounted inside the mobile
`
`radiotelephony deviceis linked to the mobile radiotelephany device;
`detecting a period of inacnvity of the mobile radsotelephony device dunng a
`normal operation of the mobile radiotelephonydevice,wherein the normaloperation
`includes @ processing ofall outgoing calls;
`a
`preventing the norma! operanon ofthe mobile radiotelephony device in
`response to the verification ofthe lmnked user identification module and in response to
`the detection ofthe period ofmacnvity of the mobile radiotelephony device.
`\\
`\o
`(Currently Amended) The method ofclaim dy. further comprising:
`permittingthe normaloperationofthe mobileradiotelephony devicein
`
`response to the verification ofthe linked user identification module and in response 10
`a supply ofa debugging deblocking code to the mobile radiotelephony device
`subsequentto the detection of the penod ofinactivity of the mobile radiotelephony
`device,
`
`\9
`|
`\K
`(Previously Presented) The method ofclaim 2Q, wherein the preveanon ofthe
`22.
`normal operation of the mobile radiotelephony device prevents all transmissions of
`outgoing calls.
`
`9
`\3
`2 (Previously Presented) The method ofclaim 2Q, wherein the prevention ofthe
`normal operation of the mobile radjotlephony device prevents al! ransmissions of
`non-emergency outgoing calls and permuts all transmissions ofemergency outgoing
`calls.
`
`fh
`
`
`
`PAGE T18*RCVDAT S004: PlstemDaylightTne] *SVR-USPTO-EFRE13*DNS24015*CS"DURATIONfrms):85-04
`
`hb
`
`97 of 164
`97 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`WAY@20-04 03:10PM=FROM-CLE FAX T-237)P.0a/18=F-6a9
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/3 10)
`Senal No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 5 of 14
`
`\t
`
`Te
`(Previously Presented) The method claim 2, further compnsing:
`storing an international identification number stored on the linked user
`identification module onto the mobile radiotelephony device as data corresponding to
`a link between the mobile radiotelephony device and the linked user identification
`module.
`
`\5
`®.
`
`\l
`(Previously Presented) The method dlaim further comprising:
`storing a personal identiticanon number stored on the linked user
`identification module onto the mobile radictelephony device as the debugging code.
`\
`\o
`® (Previously Presensed) The method of.claim39, furthercomprising:
`preventingthe normal operation ofthe mobile radiotelephony device in
`
`response to any unlinked user identification module being mounted inside the mobile
`
`mepiciconony device.
`XQ.
`(Previously Presented) In a mobile radiorelephony device, a computer
`readable medium comprising:
`"computer readable code for verifying a user identificauon module mounted
`inside the mobile radiotelephony device 1s linked to the mobile radiotelephony device;
`computer readable code for detecting a period of inactivity of the mobile
`radiotelephony device during & normal operation ofthe mobile radiotelephony device,
`wherein the normal operation includes a processing ofal) outgoing calls;
`computer readable code for preventing the norma] operation ofthe mobile
`radiotelephony device in response 10 the verification of the hnked user identificanon
`module and m response to the detection ofthe period ofinactivity of the mobjle
`radiotelephony device.
`
`\
`
`PAGEW18*RCVDAT$2204$:06:55PM Easter DaylightTe]*SVRCUSPTO-EFYRF-19 DNS72431S* CSD:DURATIONfms)54
`
`a
`
`98 of 164
`98 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`WAY=20-04 09:10PM=FROM-CLE FAX T-287«=P.OG/18=F899
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No." PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`Serial No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December |8, 2000
`Page 6 of 14
`(7
`4
`(Currently Amended) The computerreadable mediumofclaim x further
`%.
`comprising.
`
`computer readable code for permitting the normal operation of the mobile
`radiotelephony device in response to the verification ofthe linked user identification
`module and in response to a supply ofa deluging deblocking code to the mobile
`radiotelephony device subsequentto the detection of the period of inactivity of the
`mobile radiotelephony device.
`
`tS
`
`% (CurrentlyAmended) Thecomputerreadablemediumofclaim24,further
`
`\
`
`comprising.
`
`storing 4 personal identification number stored on the linked user
`identification module onto the mobile radjotelephony device as the debugging
`
`4]
`oo
`‘SQ.
`(Previously Presented) The computer readable medium of claimXY, further
`comprising:
`preventing the normal operation ofthe mobile radiowelephony device in
`response to any unlinked user identification module being mounted inside the mobile
`radiotelephony device.
`SSS
`ee
`
`PAGENB*RCVDATS20-200806:55PH[asternDaylightTne"SVR-USPTO-EFXRE-1/3*DINS:9728015*CSID:*DURATIONfumsii-04 %4
`
`99 of 164
`99 of 164
`
`

`

`WAY-20-04 03:10PM=FROM-CLG FAX T-23T «PLN PB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REMARKS/DISCUSSIONOFISSUES
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No,; PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`Serial No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 7 of 14
`
`In the Final Office Action, Examiner Zewdu rejected pending claims 11-30 on
`vanous grounds. The Applicant responds to each rejection as subsequently recited
`herein, and respectfully requests reconsideration and further examination of the
`present application under 37 CFR 4 1.114:
`
`A
`
`Examuner Zewdu rejected claims 11, 18, 21, 28 and 29 under 35
`U.S.C. §112, 1 for failmy to comply with the written description
`requirement
`.
`
`The Applicant has amended claims 11, 18, 21, 28 and 29 herein to correctly
`recite “deblocking code” Withdrawal ofthe rejection of claims 11, 18, 21, 28 and
`29 under 35 U.S.C, §112, 91 for failing to comply with the wntten description is
`therefore respectfully requested.
`
`B.
`
`Exuminer Zewdu rejected clams 1] and 13-30 under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No.5,913,175 to
`Pinault in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,095,416 10 Granr et al.
`
`The Applicant has thoroughly considered Examiner Zewdu’s remarks
`conceming the patentability of claims |) and 13-30 over Pinauir in view of Grant.
`The Applicant has also thoroughly read Pinaw/r and Gram. To warrant this 35 U.S.C.
`$103(a) rejection ofclaims 141 and 13-30,all the clarm limitations recited in
`independent claims 11, 20 and 27 must be taught or suggested by the combination of
`Pinault and Grant. See, MPEP §2143. The Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`PAGE08"RCYDATS2426:5PasteraightTne*SRLUSPTOFYR-10*ONS72015*CSD:DURATIONams)644
`
`100 of 164
`100 of 164
`
`

`

`WAY*20-04 09:10PM=FROMCLG FAX T2057) PL I/1B F888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/3 |0)
`Senal No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 8 of 14
`
`§103(a) reyectron of claims 11-30, because Pinawir and Grant in combination fails to
`disclose, teach or sugyrest the following limitations of independent claims 1], 20 and
`27:
`
`
`
`As to the traversal, Examiner Zewdu has correctly recognized Pinau/t’s failure
`10 disclose, teach or sugyest the aforementioned limitanons of independent claims 11,
`20 and 27. A proper reading of Grany reveals that Grant also fails 10 teach or suggest
`the aforementioned limutations of independent claims 11, 20 and 27.
`
`PAGE:11/48* RCVDAT 4202004 5:08:55 PlEasterDaylightTne"SVR-USPTO-EFXRF-13 DNS:4720015CID:"CURATIONfm-st-64
`
`101 of 164
`101 of 164
`
`

`

`MAY=20-04
`
`09:11PM
`
`FROMECLG FAX
`
`T2907)
`
`P.12/18
`
`F889
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (790/310)
`Serial No.; 09/739, 507
`Filed; December |8, 2000
`Page 9 of 14
`
`Specifically, Grant discloses authonzation cards having a default disabled
`state and an enabled state, where the curds revert from the enabled stare to a default
`disabled state after a predetermined period of time. See, Grant at column 3,lines 54-
`66. Ina first embodiment as illustrated in FIGS. 4(a) and.4(b) of Granz, a removal of
`pressure from a polymer 36 allows polymer 36 to return to its original shape that
`corresponds to the default disabled state. See, Grant at column 6,lines 11-19. Grans
`clearly fails to teach or sugyest a retuminy ofpolymer 36 to its originul shape as being
`a function ofan inactivity of a device.
`in a second embodiment as ilustrated in FIG. 7(c) of Grant, a sufficrent
`charge bleed off'a capacitor 106 reverss the card to the default disabled state. Sec,
`Grantat column 10,lines 43-48. Grunt clearly fails to teach or suggest blecding of
`capacitor 106 as being a function ofan inactivity of a device.
`ina third embodimentag illustrated in FIG, 9(¢) of Grant, a removal of
`
`pressure from a membrane 214 allows membrane 214to return to its original shape
`that corresponds to the default disabled state. See, Grans at column 11, lines 28-40.
`Grant clearly fails to teach or suggest a returning of membrane 214 10 its original
`
`shape as being a function of an inactivity of a device.
`The following working example of Grantclurifies the failure of Grant to teach
`or suggest the aforementioned limitahons of independent claims 11,20 and 27.
`In
`this example,the authorization cardof Grant is a credit catd mounted within a credit
`card reader. In accordance with the teachings ofGrant, an entering ofa correct PIN |
`number on the credit card via the reader enables the reader to perform credit
`,
`operations based on the confidenual informanon ofthe credit card of Grant, which,
`reverts to a disabled state after a predetermined periad of time after the entering of the
`correct PIN, This predetermined period of time 15 clearly not dependent upon an
`active state or inactive state of the credit card reader aa required by independent
`
`claims 11, 20 and 27 of the present invention. Specifically, a user ofthe credit card
`reader can be actively using the confidential information ofthe enabled credit card to
`make a purchase, yet the predetermined time period is not delayed, frozen or
`
`PAGE12/48"RCVDATS/2020045:06.55PMasternDayightTime]SVR:USPTO-EFYRF-113*DNIG:8728215CID:DURATIONgum-ss}:t4-04
`
`\n
`
`102 of 164
`102 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`WAY=20-04 03:11PM=FROVECLG FAX T-237|-P.13/18 F860
`
`
`
`
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (790/310)
`Serial No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December |8, 2000
`Page 10 of 14
`
`otherwise affected by this type ofactivity. Conversely, a user of the credit card reader
`can be indecisive as to whether or nor to use the confidentia) information of the
`
`enabled credit curd 10 make a purchase whereby the credit card reader is inactive, yet
`ihe predeterminedtime period is not delayed, frozen or otherwise affected bythis type
`of inactivity.
`:
`Thus, the combination ofPinau/t and Grant does not teach or suggest the
`aforementioned limitations of independent claims 11, 20 and 27.
`Moreover, the Applicant respectfully asserts that Pinauli aches away from
`the combination ofPinault and Grani as asserted by Examiner Zewdu, because
`Pinauit teaches its objective is to provide # method that does not require users to enter
`their PIN code each time they insert their user card imo the terminal and the
`termnal/user card link of Pinay: is dependent, firstly, on first dara stored on the
`linked user card and, secondly, on a calculation function specific to the terminal. See,
`Pinault at column 3, line 12 to column 6, line 67. Thus, to modify Pinawli ta force a
`user to enter a PIN each time the user wanted to use the card and to make time a
`
`factor in an otherwise time insensitive scheme would improperly change the principle
`operation of Pinault.
`Withdrawal ofthe rejection of independent claims 31, 20 and 27 under
`§103(a) as being unpatentable overPindudt in view OfGrant is therefore respectfully
`requested.
`Claims 13-19 depend from independent claim 11. Therefore, dependent
`claims 13-19 include all of the elements and Jimitanons of independent claim 1]. Iris
`therefore respectfully submited by the Applicant that dependent claims 13-19 are
`allowable over Pinault in view of Graarfor at |east the same reason as set forth with
`
`respect to independent claim 11 being allowable over Pinuw/s in view of Grant.
`Wuhdrawalofthe rejection ofdependent claims 13-19 under U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`patentable over Pinauilt in view of Grant is therefore respectfully requested.
`
`PAGE198°RCVDATS22458:5PasteDahTie|*\R-USPTOFARF-10*DNS:I720015"CSD:"DURATIONfans}044»
`
`103 of 164
`103 of 164
`
`

`

`WAY-20-04 03:11PM=FROWCLG FAX T2397) P.14/18 Fag
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/3110)
`Serial No.; 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 1 of 14
`
`Claims 21-26 depend from independent claim 20. Therefore, dependent
`claims 21-26 include all of the elements and limitations of independent claim 20 It1s
`therefore respectfully submitted by the Applicant that dependent claims 21-26 are
`allowable over Pinauit in view of Grant for at least the same reason as set forth with
`
`respect to independent claim 20 being allowable over Pinauir in view of Grant.
`Withdrawal ofthe rejection of dependent claims 21-26 under U.S.C. §103(a) as being —
`patentable over Pinaud: in view of Grane is therefore respectfully requested.
`Claims 28-30 depend from independent claim 27. Therefore, dependent
`claims 28-30 include all of the elements and limitations of independent claim 27. It is
`therefore respectfully subminted by the Applicant that dependent claims 28-30 are
`allowable over Pinauit in view of Grant for at least the same reason as set forth with
`respect to independentclaim 27 being allowable over Pinaulr in view of Granf.
`Withdrawalof the rejection ofdependent claims 28-30 under U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`patentable over Pinault in wew of Grantis therefore respectfully requested.
`
`c,
`
`Examiner Zewdu rejected claims 11-30 under the judicially creared
`doctrine ofobviaysness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
`over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,370,400 Bl 10 Decougaie m
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,095,416 to Graar et al.
`
`The Applicant has thoroughly considered Examiner Zewdu's remarks
`conceming the patentability of claims 11-30 over Decovigaie m view of Grant. The
`Applicant has also thoroughly read Decorignie and Grani. To warrant this
`obviousness-type double patenting rejecnon of claims 11-30,all the claim limitations
`recited in independent claims 11, 20 and 27 must be taught or suggested by the
`combination ofDecorignie and Grunt. See, MPEP §2143. The Applicant respectfully
`
`PAGE 1/8 RCVOAT 2072005:06:55 PM[EastemDayTne] $YR:USPTOEFXRE-13*OMIS:728015*CSD:*DURATIONms544
`
`b
`
`104 of 164
`104 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`WAY=20"04 3:11PM=FROWCLG FAX T2357) PL S/18 F899
`
`
`
`
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`Serial No.: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Page 12 of 14
`
`Waverses this obviousness-type double patenting reyection ofclaims 11, 12, 14-22 and
`24-30, because Decongaie and Grant im combination fails to disclose, teach or
`suggest the following limitations ofindependem claims 1], 20 and 27:
`
`NSE the
`eNO easnon mod
`
`
`mobileradiorelephonydevice” as recited in independent claim 11;
`
`
`
` ;
`
`bile
`
`radiotclent
`
`device” as
`
`recited
`
`inactivity
`of
`1
`in independentclaim 27.
`
`oft
`
`A$ to the traversal, Examiner Zewdu has correctly recognized Decorignie's
`failure to disclose, teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations of independent
`claims 11,20 and 27. And, as previously ser forth herein, a proper reading of Graar
`reveals that Grant also fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations of
`independent claims 11,20 and 27. Thus, the combination of Deculignie and Graar
`does not teach or sugyest the aforementioned limitations of independent claims. | t, 20
`and 27
`
`PAGE 1518 RCVDATSW2004§:08:55Pl Eastem DaylightTne]SURUSPTO-EFYRF-19 *ONS:8729015"CSMD:*DURATIONfmss:05-04
`
`105 of 164
`105 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`WAY=20-04 03:12PM=FROMCLG FAX P.18/18=F689T2uT
`
`
`
`
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/31)
`. Senal No.: 09/739,507
`Page 13 of 14
`
`Withdrawal ofthe rejection of independent claims 11,20 and 27 under the
`judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
`over Decotignie in view of Grant js therefore respectfully requested
`Claims 12-19 depend from independent claim 11. Therefore, dependent
`claims |2-19 include all of the elements and limitations of independentclaim IL. Iris
`therefore respectfully submited by the Applicant tha: dependent claims 12-19 are
`allowable over Decotignie in view of Grant for at least the same reason as set forth
`with respect 10 independent claim || being allowable over Decorignie in view of
`Grant. Withdrawal ofthe rejection of dependent claims 12-19 under the judicially
`created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being patentable over
`Decotignie in view of Grantis therefore respectfully requested.
`Claims 21-26 depend from independent claim 20. Therefore, dependent
`claims 21-26 include all of the elements and limitations of independent claim 20. It is
`therefore respectfully submitted by the Applicant that dependent claims 21-26 are
`allowable over Decorignte in view of Grant for at least the same reason as set forth
`with respect to independent claim 20 being allowable over Decorigne in view of
`Grant. Withdrawal of the rejection ofdependent claims 21-26 under the judicially
`created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being patentable over
`Decotignie in view of Grant 1therefore respectfully requested.
`Claims 28-30 depend from independentclaim 27. Therefore, dependent
`clams 28-30 include all ofthe elements and limitations of independent claim 27. Iris
`therefore respectfully submitted by the Applicant thar dependent claims 28-30 are
`allowable over Decotignie in view of Grant forat least the same reason as set forth
`with respect 10 independent claim 27 being allowable over Decotignie in view af
`Grant. Withdrawal ofthe rejection ofdependent claims 28-30 under the judicially
`created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being patentable over
`Decotignie in view of Grantis therefore respectfully requested.
`
`PAGE 1618 *RVDAT5120/20045:06:55PM[Eastern DaylightTime}* SYR:USPTO-EFXRF-193*DNIS:8729015*CSD: *DURATIONfrm-4s)-05-04
`
`
`
`106 of 164
`106 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAY=20-04 09:12PM=FROCLO FAX T2307) PL IT/18 F809
`
`
`
`May 20, 2004
`Case No.: PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`Serial No: 09/739,507
`Filed: December 18, 2000
`Paye 14 of 14
`
`SUMMARY
`Examiner Zewdu’s written description rejection ofclaims 11, 18, 21, 28 and
`29 has been obviated by the amendmentherein ofclaims 11, 18, 21, 28 and 29.
`Examiner Zewdu's obviousness rejection of claims 11-30 have been obviased the
`remarka herein supporting an allowance of claims | 1-30 over the art of record, The
`Applicant respectfully submics that claims | 1-30 as listed herein fully satisfy the
`requirements of35 U.S.C, §§ 102, 103 and 112. In view ofthe foregoing, favorable
`consideration and early passage to issue of the present application is respectfully
`requested. Ifany ports remain in issue that may best be resolved through « personal
`or telephonic interview, Examiner Zewduis respectfully requested two contact the
`undersigned at the telephone numiber listed below.
`
`Dated:May20,2004Respectfully submutted,
`PHILIPPE DECOTIGNIE
`
`PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY=Jack D. Slobod
`& STANDARDS
`Registration No, 26,236
`PQ Box 3001
`Attomey for Applicant
`Briarcliff, New York 10510
`
`(914) 333-9606 CARDINAL LAW GROUP
`
`.
`Registration No. 33,983
`Anomey for Applicant
`
`Suite 2000
`1603 Orrmgton Avenue
`Evanston, Illinois 6020!
`Phone: (847) 905-7111
`Fox:
`(847) 905-7113
`
`PAGE17/18"RCVDATS/2012008$:06:55PM[EasternDayTn|*VR-USPTO-EFRE1°NS-72015*C90."DURATIONpms}8594
`
`107 of 164
`107 of 164
`
`

`

` - ” RECEIVED OBRIC
`
`
`
`
`
`WAY=20-04
`
`09:12PM
`
`FROMCLG FAX
`
`
`
`CENTRAL FAX CENTER
`pT Pare
`MAY
`FO cantataES
`
`;
`
`J hereby Cerbty that (ws correspondence is being transmuned by facsimile to (703) 872-9314 to he United States Patent
`4nd Trademark Office on tris agate
`
`MAY202004C.
`
`RANK C. Ni
`
`PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a} ery99,624|(790/310)
`
`
`In re Appucaton of PHILIPPE DECOTIGNIE
`
`
`
`ForaePROTECTIONFORAllevaDEVICE
`
`
`
`Appcation Numer:rosmceicnteeoar,=OOTIRSO?[Fiea:18.20001B, 2000DECEMBERFiled:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tms is a request under ine provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) to extend tne period for filing a response toaFunaiOffice
`
`
`AcuondatedEebruaty13,2008in the above wentified apphcation.
`
`The requested extension and appropriate non-small-entity fee are a3 follows:
` Ona montn (37 CFR 1.17(a)(1))
`
`$
`110.00
`
`
`
`Two months (37 CFR 1.17(a)(2))
`$
`420.00
`
`
`Three months (37 CFR 1.17(a)(3))
`$
`95000
`$
`1,480.00
`
`Four montns (37 CFR 1.17(ak4))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OOOOOR
`
`$ 2,010.00
`Fwe months (37 CFR 1.17(ay(5))
`Apphcantis a smail entity under 37 CFR 1 9 and 1.27; therefore the fee amount shown above is
`
`reduced by one-naif, and the resulting fee is $.
`A small entity Statement under 37 CFR 1.27:
`
`{] 1senciosea.
`[_] nas already been filed in this application,
`{| Acneck in tne amountof $_____ is enciosea.
`[X]
`Tne Commissioner is nereby authonzed to charge anyfees which may be required, Or credit
`any overpayment, 10 Deposit Account No. 50-1713 A duplicate copy of Ins sheet 1s enciosad,
`
`
`
`
`Sat ee a
`
`CARDINAL LAW GROUP
`Suite 2000
`1603 Orrington Avenue
`Evanston, Ilinois 60201
`(847) 905-7111
`
`C;
`
`NICHOLAS
`RANK C.
`Registration No. 33,983
`Attomey for Applicant
`
`
`
`
`PAGE$8/18* RCVDAT 5720/2004 5:08:55PM [EastemDaylightTime] SVR'USPTO-EFXRF.1/)* DNS:8720315*CSID:*DURATION(ma-ss):05-04
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`108 of 164
`108 of 164
`
`

`

`RECEIVED
`
`WAY=2I=04 GO:3EAM=FROMCLG FAX CENTRAL FAX CENTER T-2d2 P01 F-704
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAY 2 1 2004
`
`OFFICIAL
`
`+
`
`OFFICIAL
`
`CARDINAL LAW GROUP
`Eee
`1603 Orrington Avenue/Suite 2000
`Evanston, Ninois 60201
`Telephone 847 ~ 905-7111
`Facsimile 847 —905 — 7113
`
`CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT
`PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
`
`MAY20, 2004
`
`EXAMINER MELESS ZEWDU
`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`(703) 872-9315
`
`FRANK C. NICHOLAS
`(847) 424.2521
`
`Date:
`
`To:
`
`Fax #:
`
`From:
`Phone#:
`
`Client/Matter No.:
`
`PHF 99,624 (7790/310)
`
`# of Pages:
`(including cover sheet)
`IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS RECEWING TruS MESSAGE, PLEASE CALL @47/906-7191Fat,112AND ASK FOR
`JENNIFERCAuz
`
`18
`
`0, CONFIDENT.
`CRET
`&
`TruS MESSAGE 1S erenan ONLY FOR THE INOIVIDUAL- OE ENTITY TO weitelaT IS ADDRESSED iT MAY CONTAIN
`7
`i
`THiS MESSAGE iN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN ThE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
`(AND ALL CORES) TO US By MAL AT THE ABOvE ADDRESS. wF wit REIMBURSE YOU FOR POSTAGE.
`
`PAGE8°RVDAT212004154laserDyTieSVRUSPTO-EFYRF-10OTROS"CSD:"DURATIONums.
`
`109 of 164
`109 of 164
`
`

`

`File History Content Report
`
`The following content is missing from theoriginalfile history record obtained from the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. No additional information is available.
`
`Document Date-
`
`2004-05-21
`
`Document Title -|AmendmentAfter Final
`
`Page(s)-
`
`02,03 .
`
`It has been determinedthat contentidentified .
`This page is notpart of the official USPTO record.
`on this document is missing from theoriginalfile history record.
`
`110 of 164
`110 of 164
`
`

`

`WAY~21-04 O8L3BAM
`
`-FROWRCLO FAX
`
`Ted PUA F704
`
`RECEIVED
`FAX CENTER
`MAY 21 2004
`CenaficateofFacsamite
`Pncreby owrtelly Heit ite cofrespondwne 1 beohg
`Wanametied by (ackuinke wo (70S) 872-0315 w ie US,
`Paseut and Vravermark OfficeMas202f4
`.
`(Date ot Deposu)
`
`Aimee OF
`
`cmt,
`
`on
`
`PepeBetswe
`
`Dave uf Segnadeny
`
`(N THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT
`
`(7790/310)
`
`Examiner: ZEWDU, MELESS
`
`Group Art Unit: 2683
`
`+
`
`))))
`
`)) 2j)
`
`In re patent application of:
`
`PHILIPPE DECOTIGNIE
`
`Serial No.:
`
`09/739,507
`
`Filed:
`
`DECEMBER18,2000
`
`
`
`For. ANTI-THEFT PROTECTION FOR
`ARADIOTELEPHONY DEVICE )
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`In response to a Final Office action of February 13, 2004, please amend the
`above referenced application as follows and reconsider the application wm light of the
`following remarks.
`
`
`
`PAGEAN*RCVDAT $2204 {0-265AMEastern DayightTie]SVR:USPTO-EFHRE-'3*OMS8725015*CSD:"DURATIONpms):14.56
`
`111 of 164
`111 of 164
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`WAY=2i~04 08:39AM=FROWRCLG FAX