`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
`
`PATENT NO.
`APPLICATION NO.
`DATED
`INVENTOR(S)
`
`: 8,117,644 B2
`: 12/799945
`: February 14, 2012
`: Naren Chaganti, Sitapathi Rao Chaganti and Damayanti Chaganti
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`It is certified that error appears in the above-identified patent and that said Letters Patent is hereby corrected as shown below:
`
`Title Page, Item (63) "Related U.S. Application Data" should read:
`
`--Related U.S. Application Data
`This is a Continuation application of U.S. Patent application S. No. 09/634,725 filed August 5, 2000,
`which is a Continuation-in-Part application of U.S. Patent Application S. No. 09/478,796 filed January
`7, 2000, now U.S. Patent No. 6,845,488 Bl.--
`
`Signed and Sealed this
`Eighth Day of October, 2013
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 002
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Application of: N aren Chaganti, et al.
`
`PATENT No. 8,117,644 B2
`
`~RT UNIT: 2132
`
`ISSUE DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2012
`
`EXAMINER: BENJAMIN LANIER
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE
`DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`DOCKET No: PSC0-008
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`ATTN: Certificate of Correction Branch
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir,
`
`On August 3, 2013, Applicants requested that a certificate of correction be issued in view
`
`that the published patent had incorrect priority information and that the section "Related U.S.
`
`Application Data" was in error. The section should have read:
`
`--This is a Continuation application of U.S. Patent application S. No. 09/634,725
`
`filed August 5, 2000, which is a Continuation-in-Part application of U.S. Patent
`
`Application S. No. 09/478,796 filed January 7, 2000, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,845,488 81 .--
`
`This claim for priority was made in the General Transmittal filed May 5, 2010, which
`
`was acknowledged in the filing receipt dated June 2, 2010. A duly completed form SB0044 was
`
`attached with the August 3, 2013 filing. The Office rejected the petition for want of the fee of
`
`$100. A payment is made with this request for reconsideration. Appropriate correction to the
`
`patent text is respectfully solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Dated: September 3, 2013
`
`/Naren Chaganti/ Reg. No. 44,602
`N aren Chaganti
`One of the Applicants
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
`
`Application Number:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`12799945
`
`05-May-2010
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Filer:
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`Filed as Small Entity
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111 (a) Filing Fees
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`PSC0-008
`
`Description
`
`Fee Code
`
`Quantity
`
`Amount
`
`Sub-Total in
`USO($)
`
`Basic Filing:
`
`Pages:
`
`Claims:
`
`Miscellaneous-Filing:
`
`Petition:
`
`Patent-Appeals-and-Interference:
`
`Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance:
`
`Certificate of Correction
`
`1811
`
`1
`
`100
`
`100
`
`Extension-of-Time:
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Description
`
`Fee Code
`
`Quantity
`
`Amount
`
`Sub-Total in
`USO($)
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`Total in USD ($)
`
`100
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`EFSID:
`
`Application Number:
`
`16746807
`
`12799945
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`5345
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Customer Number:
`
`24490
`
`Filer:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`PSC0-008
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Time Stamp:
`
`03-SEP-2013
`
`05-MAY-2010
`
`14:30:04
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`Payment Type
`
`yes
`
`Electronic Funds Transfer
`
`Payment was successfully received in RAM
`
`RAM confirmation Number
`
`$100
`
`851
`
`Deposit Account
`
`Authorized User
`
`File Listing:
`Document I
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Name
`
`I
`
`File Size(Bytes)/ I Multi I Pages
`(if appl.)
`Message Digest
`Part /.zip
`
`I
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 006
`
`

`

`1
`
`Request for Certificate of Correction
`
`psco-008-req uest-for-
`reconsideration.pdf
`
`27028
`
`no
`
`1
`
`c808fd892f7df1f69fb9ba382ca 15a3867600
`219
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`2
`
`Fee Worksheet (SB06)
`
`fee-info.pdf
`
`no
`
`2
`
`29733
`
`01 02236e03cb0f91 c75e29fc2334589e9e61
`fad7
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`56761
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New A~~lications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International A~~lication under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International A~~lication Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 181 O), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/1 OS) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 007
`
`

`

`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Application of: N aren Chaganti, et al.
`
`PATENT No. 8,117,644 B2
`
`~RT UNIT: 2132
`
`ISSUE DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2012
`
`EXAMINER: BENJAMIN LANIER
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE
`DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`DOCKET No: PSC0-008
`
`REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION DUE TO OFFICE ERROR
`
`ATTN: Certificate of Correction Branch
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir,
`
`On examination of the referenced Patent, Applicants have discovered that the section
`
`"Related U.S. Application Data" as published was in error. The section should instead read:
`
`--This is a Continuation application of U.S. Patent application S. No. 09/634,725
`
`filed August 5, 2000, which is a Continuation-in-Part application of U.S. Patent
`
`Application S. No. 09/478,796 filed January 7, 2000, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,845,488 81 .--
`
`This claim for priority was made in the General Transmittal filed May 5, 2010, which
`
`was acknowledged in the filing receipt dated June 2, 2010. However, this was not reflected in
`
`the published patent, which error appears to be attributable to the Office. An expedited
`
`correction is respectfully solicited. No fee is believed to be due with this paper as the error was
`
`on the part of the Office. A duly completed form SB0044 is attached to this filing.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`August 3, 2013
`
`/Naren Chaganti/ Reg. No. 44,602
`N aren Chaganti
`One of the Applicants
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 009
`
`

`

`PTO/SB/44 (09-07)
`Approved for use through 08/31/2013. 0MB 0651-0033
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 0MB control number.
`(Also Form PT0-1050)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
`
`PATENT NO.
`
`8,117,644
`
`APPLICATION NO.: 12/799,945
`
`ISSUE DATE
`
`February 14, 2012
`
`Page _1_ of _1_
`
`INVENTOR(S)
`
`NAREN CHAGANTI, SITAPATHI RAO CHAGANTI, DAMAYANTI CHAGANTI
`
`It is certified that an error appears or errors appear in the above-identified patent and that said Letters Patent
`is hereby corrected as shown below:
`The Section "Related U.S. Application Data" should read:
`
`--Related U.S. Application Data
`This is a Continuation application of U.S. Patent application S. No. 09/634,725 filed August 5, 2000, which is a
`Continuation-in-Part application of U.S. Patent Application S. No. 09/478,796 filed January 7, 2000, now U.S.
`Patent No. 6,845,488 B1 .--
`
`MAILING ADDRESS OF SENDER (Please do not use customer number below):
`/Naren Chaganti/
`Naren Chaganti, 713 The Hamptons Lane, Town and Country, MO 63017
`
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.322, 1.323, and 1.324. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file
`(and by the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 1.0 hour to
`complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer,
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED
`FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Attention Certificate of Corrections Branch, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria,
`VA 22313-1450.
`
`If you need assistance in completing the form, ca/11-800-PT0-9199 and select option 2.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`EFSID:
`
`Application Number:
`
`16494483
`
`12799945
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`5345
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Customer Number:
`
`24490
`
`Filer:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`PSC0-008
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Time Stamp:
`
`03-AUG-2013
`
`05-MAY-2010
`
`12:53:50
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`I no
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Name
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Multi
`Part /.zip
`
`Pages
`(if appl.)
`
`1
`
`Request for Certificate of Correction
`
`psco-008-req u est-for-change-
`of-priority-clai m.pdf
`
`26742
`
`8fb515d9c0dff6ca8fc2918feef30f98b45eet
`62
`
`no
`
`1
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 011
`
`

`

`2
`
`Request for Certificate of Correction
`
`psco-008-2d-s b0044-p ri nt. pdf
`
`no
`
`1
`
`34052
`
`3d6a25cb355fe574029e868ded3db57b84
`17889
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`60794
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New A~~lications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International A~~lication under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International A~~lication Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 181 O), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/1 OS) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 012
`
`

`

`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Application of: N aren Chaganti, et al.
`
`S.No. 12/799,945
`
`FILED: MAY 5, 2010
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE
`DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`~RT UNIT: 2132
`
`EXAMINER: BENJAMIN LANIER
`
`DOCKET No: PSC0-008
`
`REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION DUE TO OFFICE ERROR
`
`ATTN: Certificate of Correction Branch
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir,
`
`On examination of the Issue Notice, Applicants have learned that there are typographical
`
`errors in the last names of two applicants as follows. The last names of the second and third
`
`named inventors are entered as "Changanti" whereas the correct spelling should be --Chaganti--.
`
`These errors are attributable to the Office. See the General Transmittal filed 5/5/2010, which has
`
`the correct spellings of the names. Appropriate and expedited correction is respectfully solicited
`
`before publication of the patent. No fee is believed to be due with this paper as the error was on
`
`the part of the Office.
`
`January 30, 2012.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Naren Chaganti/ Reg. No. 44,602
`N aren Chaganti
`One of the Applicants.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`EFSID:
`
`Application Number:
`
`11947057
`
`12799945
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`5345
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Customer Number:
`
`24490
`
`Filer:
`
`Naren Chaganti
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`PSC0-008
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Time Stamp:
`
`30-JAN-2012
`
`05-MAY-2010
`
`10:13:10
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`I no
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Name
`
`1
`
`Request for Certificate of Correction
`
`psco-008-req uest-to-co rrect-
`names-of-inventors.pdf
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Multi
`Part /.zip
`
`Pages
`(if appl.)
`
`21703
`
`no
`
`1
`
`b03745916e 770714895285a846a 12693dat
`ba38b
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`21703
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 181 O), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/1 OS) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 016
`
`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`

`Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`12/799,945
`
`Examiner
`
`BENJAMIN LANIER
`
`CHAGANTI ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`2432
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) BENJAMIN LANIER.
`
`(2) Naren Chaganti (Reg. No. 44.602).
`
`(3) __ .
`
`(4) __ .
`
`Type:
`
`Date of Interview: 08 December 2011.
`IZI Telephonic O Video Conference
`0 Personal [copy given to: 0 applicant
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: 0 Yes
`If Yes, brief description: __ .
`
`0 applicant's representative]
`
`0No.
`
`Issues Discussed 0101 0112 1Z1102 0103 OOthers
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 15. 19.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: n/a.
`
`Substance of Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification of a
`reference or a portion thereof, claim interpretation, proposed amendments, arguments of any applied references etc ... )
`
`Mr. Chaganti discussed amending the claims to include a combination of claims 15 and 19. Claim 19 had previously
`been indicated as including allowable subiect matter. Examiner agreed that these amendments would be considered
`allowable.
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04 ). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of
`the substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the
`general results or outcome of the interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issues raised.
`IZI Attachment
`/Benjamin E Lanier/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20111208
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 022
`
`

`

`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substance of Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance of any face-to-face, video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be made of record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview.
`
`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1 .135. (35 U .S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so. It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion of the file, and listed on the
`"Contents" section of the file wrapper. In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview. In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview, the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other
`circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`Name of applicant
`Name of examiner
`Date of interview
`Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`Name of participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`An identification of the specific prior art discussed
`An indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement as to allowability is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)
`
`It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
`should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
`unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substance of the interview.
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed,
`3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
`required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments made to the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
`describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview. If the record is not complete and
`accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`Examiner to Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiner's version of the
`statement attributed to him or her. If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should place the indication, "Interview Record OK" on the
`paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 023
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Application of: N aren Chaganti, et al.
`
`Ser. Nos.
`09/634, 725,
`12/799,945,
`13/089,775 and
`13/091,387
`FILED:
`
`TITLE:
`
`ART UNIT:2132
`
`EXAMINER: BENJAMIN LANIER
`
`bocKET No: PSC0-007, PSC0-008,
`PSC0-012 & PSC0-014
`
`PRE-INTERVIEW DISCUSSION POINTS
`
`Assistant commissioner for Patents
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`This document is prepared in anticipation of a telephone interview. Please consider the
`following points.
`
`1. Ser. No. 12/799,945 - In an amendment after final, Applicants would like to cancel all claims
`including Claim 19 which is indicated as allowable, renumber the claims and rewrite Claim 19 to
`remove some unnecessary things, and have the claims dependent on Claim 15 to be dependent on
`(renumbered) Claim 19, and would like to add one system claim that simply recites a server
`computer that performs the method of (renumbered) claim 19. These changes are suggested
`without prejudice to the ability to prosecute claim 15 further at a later date.
`
`2. Ser. No. 09/634,725 - we would like to make one additional argument that Glassman "teaches
`away" in view of a recent BPAI decision in BPAI case no. 2009-012801, entitled Ex parte
`Thusoo (App. Ser. No. Ser. No. 10/662,095) where a reference used words meant to discourage
`combination:
`
`Moreover, since this explicit disclosure in Reference [A] uses restrictive
`words such as "only" and "exactly," we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have been discouraged from modifying the RETURNING clause to
`include the ability to operate on separate rows (i.e., return values from
`separate rows when a value in each row has been inserted, updated, or
`deleted).
`
`Examiner is respectfully review that case and an October 2010 publication of the PTO
`entitled, "Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 024
`
`

`

`v. Teleflex" which references at Example 4.6 a case on when a reference teaches away from a
`combination. That case is DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314
`(Fed. Cir. 2009), where the Court stated:
`
`Here, Medtronic asserts that achieving a rigid pedicle screw was itself the
`reason to combine Puna and Anderson. In rebuttal, DePuy argues, and
`the district court found, that Puna "teaches away" from a rigid screw
`because Puna warns that rigidity increases the likelihood that the screw
`will fail within the human body, rendering the device inoperative for its
`intended purpose. Ensnarement Order, 526 F. Supp. 2d at 172. The
`district court thus found that Puno's teachings undermine the very reason
`Medtronic proffers as to why it would have been obvious to combine Puna
`and Anderson, viz., the creation of a rigid screw.
`
`Applicants believe that the language of Glassman would have been sufficiently
`discouraging to one of skill in the art for the reasons stated in Glassman. Examiner is
`respectfully requested to review this case.
`
`3. Ser. No. 13/089,775 - Applicants would like to perhaps file an RCE for this case.
`
`4. Ser. No. 13/091,387 -Applicants would like to discuss if claims in this case can be readied for
`an appeal.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Naren Chaganti/ Reg. No. 44,602
`N aren Chaganti
`
`December 7, 2011
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1011
`Unified Patents v. Synkloud Technologies
`Page 025
`
`

`

`

`

`Title
`
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE DOCUMENT COLLABORATION
`
`Preliminary Class
`
`726
`
`PROTECTING YOUR INVENTION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
`
`Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no
`effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in another country must apply for a patent
`in a specific country or in regional patent offices. Applicants may wish to consider the filing of an international
`application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). An international (PCT) application generally has the same
`effect as a regular national patent application in each PCT-member country. The PCT process simplifies the filing
`of patent applications on the same invention in member countries, but does not result in a grant of "an international
`patent" and does not eliminate the need of applicants to file additional documents and fees in countries where patent
`protection is desired.
`
`Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an
`application for patent in that country in accordance with its particular laws. Since the laws of many countries differ
`in various respects from the patent law of the United States, applicants are advised to seek guidance from specific
`foreign countries to ensure that patent rights are not lost prematurely.
`
`Applicants also are advised that in the case of inventions made in the United States, the Director of the US PTO must
`issue a license before applicants can apply for a patent in a foreign country. The filing of a U.S. patent application
`serves as a request for a foreign filing license. The application's filing receipt contains further information and
`guidance as to the status of applicant's license for foreign filing.
`
`Applicants may wish to consult the USPTO booklet, "General Information Concerning Patents" (specifically, the
`section entitled "Treaties and Foreign Patents") for more information on timeframes and deadlines for filing foreign
`patent applications. The guide is available either by contacting the USPTO Contact Center at 800-786-9199, or it
`can be viewed on the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html.
`
`For information on preventing theft of your intellectual property (patents, trademarks and copyrights), you may wish
`to consult the U.S. Government website, http://www.stopfakes.gov. Part of a Department of Commerce initiative,
`this website includes self-help "toolkits" giving innovators guidance on how to protect intellectual property in specific
`countries such as China, Korea and Mexico. For questions regarding patent enforcement issues, applicants may
`call the U.S. Government hotline at 1-866-999-HAL T (1-866-9