`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandtia, Virginia 22313-1450
`WwWw.uspto.gov
`
`14/990,203
`
`01/07/2016
`
`Katelijn Vleugels
`
`0097725-001US6
`
`3115
`
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`OneInternational Place
`Suite 3700
`Boston. MA 02110
`
`VOLTAIRE, JEAN F
`
`ART UNIT
`2466
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`11/15/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find belowand/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date” to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @ princelobel.com
`
`PTOL-90A(Rev. 04/07)
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 1
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 1
`
`

`

`.
`Notice ofAbandonment
`
`Application No.
`
`14/990, 203
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`Vleugels etal.
`Art Unit
`
`JEAN F VOLTAIRE
`
`2466
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence adaress--
`
`This application is abandonedin view of:
`
`1. C2 Applicant's failure to timely file a proper reply to the Office letter mailed on
`(a) CZ) A reply wasreceived on
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`period for reply (including a total extension oftime of
`month(s)) which expired on
`(b) 1) A proposed reply was received on
`, but it does not constitute a proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to thefinal rejection.
`(A proper reply under 37 CFR 1.113 toafinal rejection consists only of:(1) a timely filed amendment which places the
`application in condition for allowance; (2) a timely filed Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee); or (3) if this is utility or plant
`application, a timely filed Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. Note that RCEs are not
`permitted in design applications.)
`LJ A reply was received on
`but it does not constitute a proper reply, or a bona fide attempt at a proper reply, to the non-final
`rejection. See 37 CFR 1.85(a) and 1.111. (See explanation in box 7 below).
`LJ Noreply has been received.
`
`}, whichis after the expiration of the
`
`
`
`3.0 Applicant's failure to timelyfile corrected drawings as required by, and within the three-month period setin, the Notice of
`Allowability (PTO-37).
`(a) O Proposed corrected drawings were received on
`after the expiration of the period for reply.
`(b) (4 No corrected drawings have been received.
`
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`
`}, whichis
`
`.
`
`4. (1) Theletter of express abandonmentwhich is signed by the attorney or agent of record or other party authorized under 37 CFR 1.33
`(b). See 37 CFR 1.138(b).
`
`4
`5.) Theletter of express abandonmentwhich is signed by an attorney or agent(acting in a representative capacity under 37 CFR
`.34) upon the filing of a continuing application.
`
`6. (1 The decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference rendered on
`of the decision has expired and there are no allowed claims.
`
`and because the period for seeking court review
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 1) Applicant's failure to timely pay the required issue fee and publication fee,if applicable, within the statutory period of three months
`from the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85).
`(with a Certificate of Mailing or Transmission dated
`(a) C] The issue fee and publication fee, if applicable, was received on
`), which is after the expiration of the statutory period for paymentof the issue fee (and publication fee) set in the Notice of
`Allowance (PTOL-85).
`is due.
`is insufficient. A balance of $
`(b) J The submitted fee of $
`The issue fee required by 37CFR 1.18 is $
`. The publication fee, if required by 37 CFR 1.18(d), is $
`(c) J) The issue fee and publication fee,if applicable, has not been received.
`
`7.(¥}The reason(s) below:
`
`Appellant hereby withdraws the above-referenced appeal prior to issuance of a written decision. Appellant requests immediately
`dismiss the appeal without any further action.
`
`/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2466
`
`/FARUK HAMZA/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
`
`Petitions to revive under 37 CFR 1.137, or requests to withdraw the holding of abandonment under 37 CFR 1.181, should be promptly filed to minimize
`any negative effects on patent term.
`U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Offi
`PTOL-1432 (Rev.07-14)
`
`Notice of Abandonment
`
`Part of Paper No. 20191107
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 2
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 2
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`14/990,203
`
`01/07/2016
`
`Katelijn Vleugels
`
`0097725-001US6
`
`3115
`
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`OnceInternational Place
`Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`VOLTAIRE, JEAN F
`
`ART UNIT
`2466
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/07/2019
`
`LLLECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period forreply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date” to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @princelobel.com
`
`PTOL-90A(Rev. 04/07)
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 3
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 3
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte KATELIJN VLEUGELS etal.
`
`Appeal 2018-004855
`Application 14/990,203
`Technology Center 2400
`
`ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board assumedjurisdiction of the above-
`
`identified proceeding on April 9, 2018. A document withdrawing the appeal
`
`in this proceeding wasfiled on November1, 2019. See MPEP 1215.01.
`
`Accordingly, the appeal in this application is dismissed. The
`
`application is being returned to the Examinerfor further action as may be
`
`appropriate.
`
`If there are any questions pertaining to this Order, please contact the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797.
`
`BAR/RMM
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 4
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 4
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Application No.
`Appeal No.
`First Named Inventor
`Filed
`TC/A.U.
`Examiner
`
`Docket No.
`Customer No.
`Confirmation No.
`
`: 14/990,203
`: 2018-004855
`: Katelyn Vleugels
`: January 7, 2016
`: 2466
`: Jean F. Voltaire
`
`: 0097725-001US6
`: 145584
`: 3115
`
`NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL
`
`Mail Stop
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`DearSir:
`
`Appellant hereby withdraws the above-referenced appeal prior to issuance of a written
`
`decision. Please immediately dismiss the appeal without any further action.
`
`Appellant does not believe that any fees are due, however, the U.S. PTO is authorized to
`
`charge any required fees to Appellant’s counsel’s deposit account number 145584.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:___/Brian A. Tollefson/
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Registration No. 46,338
`Attorney for Applicant
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`OneInternational Place
`Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`T: (617) 456-8099
`btollefson@princelobel.com
`
`
`Date: November 1, 2019
`
`3324010-11/1/19
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 5
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 5
`
`

`

`
`
`a e
`
`Electronic AcknowledgementReceipt
`
`mis
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Apparatus and Methodfor Integrating Short-Range Wireless Personal Area
`.
`Networks for a Wireless Local Area NetworkInfrastructure
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`renee
`
`Paymentinformation:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`File Listing:
`
`Pages
`Multi
`File Size(Bytes)/
`DocumentDescription
`Document
`
`
`
`Number Message Digest|Part/.zip|P (if appl.)
`
`Request to Withdraw Appeal by
`Appellant
`
`14990203_Withdrawal.pdf
`
`5dS65d8d31191d2b096927944f7db36cdbc
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 6
`
`

`

`Information:
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidencesreceipt on the noted date by the USPTOof 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.
`
`the application.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary componentsfora 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 shownonthis
`Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish thefiling 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/EO/903indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under35 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 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown onthis Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish the international filing date of
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 7
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Thereby certify that this correspondenceis being filed via
`EFS-Webwith the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`on April 05,2018,
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`
`By:/Cindy Taliva’a/
`
`PATENT
`——
`Attorney Docket No.: 0097725-001US6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Confirmation No.: 3115
`
`Examiner: Jean F. Voltaire
`
`Technology Center/Art Unit: 2466
`
`APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 41.41
`
`
`
`In re Application of:
`
`Katelijn Vleugels etal.
`
`Application No.: 14/990,203
`
`Filed: January 7, 2016
`
`FOR: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR
`INTEGRATING SHORT-RANGE
`WIRELESS PERSONAL AREA
`NETWORKS FOR A WIRELESS LOCAL
`AREA NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE
`
`Customer No.: 83664
`
`Mail Stop Appeal Brief
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Commissioner:
`
`In response to the Examiner’s Answer(hereinafter the “Answer’), mailed February 8,
`
`2018 and in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41, Appellant respectfully submits this Reply Brief
`
`and requests consideration of the remarks madeherein.
`
`Amongother papersrelated to the above-cited application (hereinafter the “Application”)
`
`that may be referenced in this Reply Brief, a Final Office Action was mailed on October 4, 2016
`
`(hereinafter the “Final Office Action’), a Replyto the Final Office Action was submitted January
`
`4, 2017 (hereinafter the “Reply to Hinal Office Action”; captioned “Amendment After Final’), an
`
`Advisory Action was mailed on January 27, 2017 (hereinafter the “Advisory Action’), and
`
`Appellant’s Brief on Appeal wasfiled on October 3, 2017 (hereinafter the “Appeal Brief’).
`
`lof6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 8
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 8
`
`

`

`Katelijn Vleugels et al.
`U.S. Pat. App. No.: 14/990,203
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No.: 0097725-001US6
`
`1. STATUS OF THE CLAIMS
`
`Claims 1-7 are currently pending andare rejected pending this appeal. Claim 1 is the
`
`sole independent claim. A copy of Appellant’s claims as currently rejected is located on pp. 11-
`
`12 of the Appeal Brief. A summary ofthe claimed subject matteris laid out in the Appeal Brief.
`
`2. GROUNDSOF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL
`
`Claim 1 stands rejected under non-statutory type double patenting over claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 9,264,991. Appellant did not opposethe rejection, but will agree to filing a terminal
`
`disclaimer to overcomethat rejection if the claim is otherwise allowed.
`
`Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with an assertion of unpatentability
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 6,771,933 to Eng (“-#ng’’) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2006/0015621 to Quinn (“Quinn”). Details of those rejections are laid out in the Final Office
`
`Action and the Appeal Brief.
`
`3. ARGUMENTSIN RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER
`
`Appellant respectfully maintains the arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief, which is
`
`herebyincorporated by reference in its entirety. Furthermore, Appellant respectfully submits the
`
`following arguments in response to the Answer.
`
`Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to a network-enabled hub wherein logic maintains at least
`
`a first network connection using a first network protocol and a second network connection using
`
`a second network protocol, that can be maintained, at times, simultaneously with each other,
`
`wherein the second network protocol is an overlay protocol with respect to the first network
`
`protocol in that communications using the second network protocol are partially consistent with
`
`the first network protocol.
`
`2 of 6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 9
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 9
`
`

`

`Katelijn Vleugels et al.
`U.S. Pat. App. No.: 14/990,203
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No.: 0097725-001US6
`
`In prior arguments, Appellant has pointed out that it might not make sense, or be obvious
`
`to, combine the teachings of Ang and Quinn and the reasons therefore have been set out in prior
`
`filings. In this Reply Brief, in order to focus the arguments, Appellant will not address that point
`
`as it should be apparent that even if Ang and Quinn were somehow combined, that combination
`
`would still lack a teaching of each element of independent claim 1 and therefore the allowability
`
`ofthe pending claims does not turn on whether Hng and Quinn could be sensibly combined.
`
`The parties appear to agree that Ang does not show the element of “...at least a first
`
`network connection using a first network protocol and a second network connection using a
`
`second network protocol, that can be maintained, at times, simultaneously with each other,
`
`wherein the second network protocol is an overlay protocol with respect to the first network
`
`protocol in that communications using the second network protocol are partially consistent with
`
`the first network protocol” of claim 1. For example, note paragraph (2)(a)(1) of the Answer
`
`(“However, Eng appearsto be silent as to the second network protocol is an overlay with respect
`
`to the first network protocol in that communications using the second network protocol are
`
`partially consistent with the first network protocol.”).
`
`Thus it appears that the main difference in the positions of the parties is as to whether
`
`Quinndiscloses an overlay protocol, and more precisely, “a first network protocol and a second
`
`network connection using a second network protocol, that can be maintained, at times,
`
`simultaneously with each other, wherein the second network protocol is an overlay protocol with
`
`respect to the first network protocol in that communications using the second network protocol
`
`are partially consistent with the first network protocol” as claimed in claim 1.
`
`3 of 6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 10
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 10
`
`

`

`Katelijn Vleugels et al.
`U.S. Pat. App. No.: 14/990,203
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No.: 0097725-001US6
`
`It would appearthat the essence of the Examiner’s argumentin the Answeris that
`
`Quinn’s use of both a wireless local area network module (WLAN)[in Quinn, that module is an
`
`802.11 WLAN module] and a wireless personal area network interface (WPAN)[in Quinn, that
`
`module is a Bluetooth™module]. Appellant has explained, at several points in the prosecution
`
`that neither the WLAN nor the WPANconstitute the claimed overlay network,as the recited
`
`elements of the claim are not met.
`
`For example, Appellant has explained that the use by a device of the Bluetooth™
`
`network protocol and the 802.11 WLANprotocol would not be a use of an overlay protocol at
`
`least because the Bluetooth™ network protocol is not an overlay protocol with respect to the
`
`WLANnetwork protocol nor is the WLAN network protocol an overlay protocol with respect to
`
`the Bluetooth™network protocol. This is the case at least because neitheris partially consistent
`
`with the other. This requirement is not a case of “limitations from the specification being read
`
`into the claims”as the claims have long since had the explicit recitation of “the second network
`
`protocol is an overlay protocol with respect to the first network protocol in that communications
`
`using the second network protocol are partially consistent with the first network protocol.”
`
`It would appear that the Examiner’s assertion is that the Bluetooth™ network protocol in
`
`Quinnis an overlay protocol with respect to the 801.11 WLANprotocol because Quinnuses a
`
`common antenna for the 801.11 WLAN communications and the WPANprotocol
`
`communications. See, Answer, paragraph (2)(b)(i)(2) (“...the WPANprotocol of Quinn’s
`
`reference is an overlay protocol with respect to the WLANprotocol of Quinn’s reference in that
`
`communications using the WPAN protocol are partially consistent with the WLANprotocol
`
`since they share a commonantenna to communicate information in each respective network.”)
`
`4 of 6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 11
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 11
`
`

`

`Katelijn Vleugels et al.
`U.S. Pat. App. No.: 14/990,203
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No.: 0097725-001US6
`
`Appellant agrees that Quinn shows that a WLAN module and a WPAN module can use
`
`the same antenna, such as FIG. 2 of Quinn showing antenna 28, WLAN module 30 and WPAN
`
`module 32 and paragraph [0018] of Quinn mentioning those elements. That says nothing about
`
`whether modules use protocols that are partially consistent. This point was explained in the
`
`Reply to Final Office Action. See, Reply to Final Office Action, p. 6 (“Quinn does not describe
`
`or suggest any particular need for making such protocols overlay protocols. It could be that
`
`Quinn’ s multi-mode wireless switches (see item 26 in FIG. 2 of Quinn) internally coordinates to
`
`avoid interference, but Quinn does not even appear to address or comment on wireless
`
`interference. Thus, if the Examineris to cite Quinn as teaching the claimed overlay protocol, the
`
`Examiner mustat least point to something in Quinn where one network protocol is an overlay
`
`protocol with respect to another network protocol in that communications using the second
`
`network protocol are partially consistent with the first network protocol. Quinn’s { [0020]
`
`merely showsthat multiple wireless protocols could be used.”). The Examiner has now
`
`apparently taken a position that the use of a common antennateachesthe use of two protocols
`
`that are partially consistent and connections “that can be maintained, at times, simultaneously
`
`with each other” from merely the mention of a common antenna.
`
`In prior arguments, Appellant explained the network protocols used in Quinnare not
`
`overlay networks in that is not a second network protocolthat is partially consistent with the first
`
`network protocol. In response to the Examiner’s new argumentthat the use of a common
`
`antenna for two protocols makes them the claimed overlay protocols, Appellant respectfully
`
`disagrees and notes that nothing in Quinn indicates any particular partial consistency of protocols
`
`being used.
`
`5 of 6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 12
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 12
`
`

`

`Katelijn Vleugels et al.
`U.S. Pat. App. No.: 14/990,203
`
`PATENT
`Attorney Docket No.: 0097725-001US6
`
`In view of the above, even if it were obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time ofinvention to combine the teaching of Quinn with the teaching of Ang, there still would
`
`not be a teachingof all of the elements of the claims, because the combination of Quinn and Eng
`
`do not teach an overlay protocol, as recited in the claims. Thus, Appellant respectfully submits
`
`that the claims are allowable over Eng and Quinn.
`
`4. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasonsstated herein, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 should be reversed. If for any reason the Board finds the Application other than in
`
`condition for allowance, the Office 1s requested to call the undersigned attorney at the telephone
`
`numberbelow to discuss the steps necessary for placing the Application in condition for
`
`allowance.
`
`The Appeal Forwarding Fee required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.20(b)(4) of $2,240 is submitted
`
`with this filing. Appellant is not requesting an oral hearing, so the 37 C.F.R. § 41.20(b)(3) fee is
`
`not required to be submitted. It is believed that no other fees are due at this time. If fees are due,
`
`the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge such fees, or credit any overpaymentsto
`
`Deposit Account No. 040258.
`
`Date: April 5, 2018
`
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Eighth Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-6533
`Tel:
`(415) 276-4890 Fax: (415) 276-6599
`PHA/clt
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Philip H. Albert/
`Philip H. Albert
`Reg. No. 35,819
`
`6 of 6
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 13
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 13
`
`

`

`Electronic AcknowledgementReceipt
`
`ee
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Apparatus and Methodfor Integrating Short-Range Wireless Personal Area
`.
`Networks for a Wireless Local Area NetworkInfrastructure
`
`a
`
`emis
`
`
`
`Utility under 35 USC 1110)
`
`Payment was successfully received in RAM
`RAM confirmation Number
`
`$2240
`04061 8INTEFSW00002072040258
`
`Paymentinformation:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`yes
`
`The Director of the USPTO is hereby authorized to charge indicated fees and credit any overpayment as follows:
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 14
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 14
`
`

`

`Document
`sas
`.
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Multi
`Pages
`
`
`
`
`Number Message Digest|Part/.zip| (if appl.) DocumentDescription File Name
`114085
`
`File Listing:
`
`Reply BriefFiled
`
`2018-04-05-Reply-
`Brief-0097725-001US6.pdf
`
`020677ee7b8fs3Off! cffo83746d4.a2f837ae
`6a6
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary componentsfora 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 shownonthis
`Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish thefiling 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/EO/903indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under35 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 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`andofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receiptwill establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`Fee Worksheet (SBO6)
`
`fee-info. pdf
`
`43487885d47491 7118989525c01d91389cdf]
`Ode97
`
`Information:
`
`This AcknowledgementReceipt evidencesreceipt on the noted date by the USPTOof the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable.It serves as evidenceof receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 15
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 15
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PA'TEN''S
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwUsplo.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEYDOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`14/990,203
`
`01/07/2016
`
`Katelijn Vieugels
`
`0097725-001US6
`
`3115
`
`Davis Wright ‘Tremaine LLP - SF
`IP Docketing Dept.
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
`Tr
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`VOLTAIRE, JEAN F
`
`ART UNIT
`366
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE.
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/08/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period forreply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date” to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patentdocket@dwt.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 16
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 16
`
`

`

`
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Wwww.uspto.goyv
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 14/990,203
`Filing Date: January 07, 2016
`Appellant(s): VLEUGELSETAL.
`
`Philip H. Albert
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in responseto the appealbrief filed on 10/3/2017.
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 17
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/990,203
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 2
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 10/04/2016 from
`
`which the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner exceptfor the groundsof
`
`rejection (if any) listed under the subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New
`
`grounds of rejection (if any) are provided under the subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF
`
`REJECTION.”
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Appellant asserts:
`
`a.
`
`The § 103(a) rejection is deficient because each and every elementof
`
`Appellant’s claim 1
`
`is not disclosed or suggested by Eng, by Quinn, or by a combination
`
`of Eng and Quinn.
`
`i.
`
`The Examiner very kindly points out that a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness has well been established by the combination of Eng and Quinn. As
`
`stated in previous office action, the rejection of independent 1
`
`is an obviousness
`
`rejection depending upon the combination of Eng’s reference and Quinn’s
`
`reference, rather than either reference taken alone. As depicted in figure 4, Eng
`
`discloses a first wireless network protocol
`
`(WLAN) and a second wireless
`
`network protocol (WPAN) such as a WLAN/M-BTAP radio that enables network
`
`connection with a Bluetooth device (enabling a second radio protocol) while
`
`supporting data flow using WLAN (first radio protocol). Moreover, figure 4 further
`
`shows how WLAN/M-BTAP maintains uplink and downlink connections between
`
`the first wireless network (WLAN) and the second wireless network (WPAN). Eng
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 18
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/990,203
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 3
`
`further discloses data generated by application server 426 and Bluetooth devices
`
`is transmitted by WLAN radio as shownin figure 4. However, Eng appears to be
`
`silent as to the second network protocol
`
`is an overlay with respect to the first
`
`network protocol in that communications using the second network protocol are
`
`partially consistent with the first network protocol. At this point, Quinn's reference,
`
`which is in similar filed of endeavor,
`
`is cited in the rejection to cure the above
`
`deficiency of Eng. As depicted in figure 2, Quinn discloses an information
`
`handling system to process information,
`
`including two wireless networking
`
`interfaces WLAN and WPAN. Peripherals interact with the handling system
`
`through wireless local area network and wireless personal area network. A multi-
`
`mode switch (26) with the wireless networking interfaces placed in a housing
`
`allocates communication between the handling system and peripherals through
`
`the wireless networks. In section (b)(i)(2) below, the Examinerwill point out how
`
`the Quinn’s reference cures the deficiency of Eng and why a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness has well been established by the combination of Eng and Quinn.
`
`b.
`
`That neither reference, alone nor in combination, describes“...
`
`maintaining at least a first network connection using a first network protocol and a
`
`second network connection using a second network protocol, that can be maintained, at
`
`times, simultaneously with each other, wherein the second network protocol is an
`
`overlay protocol with respect to the first network protocol in that communications
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 19
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 19
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/990,203
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 4
`
`using the second network protocolare partially consistent with the first network
`
`protocol’ in accordance with Appellants’ claimed invention.
`
`i.
`
`The Examiner very kindly points outthat:
`
`1) in section [(a)-i] above, the Examiner already described how WLAN/M-
`
`BTAP maintains uplink and downlink connections between the first
`
`wireless network (WLAN) and the second wireless network (WPAN).
`
`2) that neither the claim itself nor the specification define “the second
`
`network protocol
`
`is an overlay protocol with respect to the first network
`
`protocol
`
`in that communications using the second network protocol are
`
`partially consistent with the first network protocol” in a substantial matter.
`
`The specification, for example in paragraph 65, merely describes that “the
`
`use of a secondary network (WPAN) protocol that is an overlay protocol
`
`that is partially compatible with the WLAN protocol, but not entirely, in
`
`terms of power, frame contents and sequences, timing, etc.”i.e. not
`
`limited to only power, frame contents and sequences, timing. Therefore,
`
`as depicted in figure 2 and paragraph 18 of Quinn (secondary reference
`
`cited to cure the deficiency of Eng’s reference), a wireless local area
`
`network module 30 (WLAN) and wireless personal area network 32
`
`(WPAN)
`
`interface
`
`share a common antenna 28 to
`
`communicate
`
`information in each respective network.
`
`In view of paragraph 65 of the
`
`instant application, the WPAN protocol of Quinn’s reference is an overlay
`
`protocol with respect to the WLAN protocol of Quinn's reference in that
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 20
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/990,203
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 5
`
`communications using the WPAN protocol are partially consistent with the
`
`WLAN protocol since they share a common antenna to communicate
`
`information in each respective network.
`
`ii.
`
`In responseto appellant’s argument that “the use by a device of the
`
`Bluetooth protocol and the 802.11 WLAN protocol would not be a use of
`
`an overlay protocol because the Bluetooth network protocol
`
`is not an
`
`overlay protocol with respect to the WLAN network protocol nor is the
`
`WLANnetwork protocol an overlay protocol with respect to the Bluetooth
`
`network protocol. This is the case at least because neither is partially
`
`consistent with the other”.
`
`Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
`
`limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. As stated
`
`above, the specification of the examining application describes (paragraph
`
`65) how the WPAN protocol
`
`is an overlay protocol
`
`that
`
`is partially
`
`compatible with the WLAN protocol, but not entirely,
`
`in terms of power,
`
`frame contents and sequences, timing, etc. Since they share a common
`
`antenna to communicate information in each respective network, therefore
`
`they are partially consistent with the other as shown in figure 2 of Quinn’s
`
`reference. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993).
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 21
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 21
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/990,203
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 6
`
`c.
`
`That dependentclaims 2-7 are allowable overthe cited references at least
`
`due to their dependence on allowable claim 1.
`
`i.
`
`The Examiner very kindly points out that because of the rejection
`
`for Claim 1
`
`is met by the references cited above, the dependent Claims 2-
`
`7 are rejected for the reasons set forth above in the grounds of rejection.
`
`DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
`
`The following ground(s) of rejection is/are not presented for review on appeal
`
`because the Appellant did not oppose the rejection, but will agree to filing a Terminal
`
`Disclaimer (TD) to overcome the double patenting rejection of claim 1
`
`if the claim is
`
`otherwise allowed.
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/JEAN F VOLTAIRE/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2466
`
`Conferee:
`
`/JAE Y LEE/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
`
`/FARUK HAMZA/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 22
`
`DELL
`EXHIBIT 1014 - PAGE 22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/990,203
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 7
`
`Requirement to pay appeal forwarding fee.
`
`In order to avoid dismissal of the instant
`
`appealin any application or ex parte reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 41.45 requires
`
`payment of an appeal