Doc Code: M865 or FALREQ.INTV
`
`PTOL-413A (10-09)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2012. OMB 0651-0031
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form
`
`.
`FirstNamedApplicant: Cbrads re
`ApplicationNg 90 O(S 2397
`Art Unit: 37¢2_
`Status ofApplication: ends ne
`Examiner:
`&
`
`Tentative Participants:weetClana
`
`aetenAtha (2) (Aina
`
`
`
`(3)
`Proposed Date of Interview:
`
`(4)
`‘( ¥ comboey— % Zl of
`
`Proposed Time:
`
`{ \ “090 AM/PM)
`
`Type of Interview Requested:
`(1) [
`] Telephonic
`(2) [\f Personal
`
`(3) [
`
`] Video Conference
`
`Exhibit To Be Shown or Demonstrated:
`If yes, provide brief description:
`
`[
`
`] YES
`
`[SPNO
`
`Issues To Be Discussed
`
`Claims/
`Fig. #s
`
`Prior
`
`—a-i,20 Hittuwleetes
`
`Issues
`(Rej., Obj., ete)
`
`toe)
`(2)
`
` )
`
`Registration Number,if applicable
`
`:
`Aninterview was conducted on the above-identified application on
`NOTE: This form should be completed by applicant and submitted to the examiner in advance of the interview
`(see MPEP § 713.01).
`This application will not be delayed from issue becauseof applicant’s failure to submit a written record of this
`interview. Therefore, applicant is advised to file a statementof the substance of this interview (37 CFR 1.133(b))
`
`Discussed
`
`Not Agreed
`
`1)
`[]
`
`[]
`
`[
`
`]
`
`[1
`[J
`
`[
`
`[
`
`]
`
`]
`
`(4)
`ja Continuation Sheet Attached
`[
`] Proposed Amendment or Arguments Attached
`Brief Description of Arguments to be Presented:
`
`epresentative Signature
`ul
`"OeNameofApplicant or Representative
`(8¢
`
`Examiner/SPE Signature
`
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.133. 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 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 21 minutes to
`complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Timewill vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amountof 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: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`Ifyou need assistance in completing theform, call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`

`

`Interview Agenda for Ser. No. 90/013,239
`
`Human Factors Article Cannot Anticipate Claims Under 35 USC §102
`
`The Human Factors Article is not a disclosure of any particular navigation apparatus, and is
`similarly not a disclosure of any particular navigation system. Rather,it is an article that
`purports to be “design guidelines” that are “intended to be used by anyone responsible for the
`conceptualization, development, design, testing, or evaluation of Advanced Traveler
`Information Systems (ATIS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) devices.” The Human
`Factors Article merely discloses high-level concepts of basic routing and navigation capabilities
`“identified through interviews and a review ofthe literature.” (Human Factors, Forward).
`
`Per MPEP 2131, for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, “The elements must be arranged
`as required by the claim”. MPEP 2131 also states, “’ . “The identical invention must be shownin
`as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim.’” (quoting Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868
`F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
`
`Further, With regard to anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102, the Federal Circuit has stated:
`
`unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the documentnotonlyall
`of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in
`the same wayas recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of
`the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Federal Cir. 2008)(emphasis
`added).
`In Net MoneyIN, the Court held that there was no anticipation because neither
`of two embodimentsin the single prior art reference contained all the claimed “links”
`combined in the same way as in the claim, even though the two embodiments,if
`combined, disclosed all of the claimed “links”.
`
`There are many admissions throughout the Human Factors reference which establish that the
`drawings and descriptions of maps, routes, and devices in the Human Factors reference are
`merely simulations or “mock-ups” of non-existent devices. Similarly, each guideline is separate,
`and there is no “embodiment” combining guidelines.
`
`The individual guidelines presented in Human Factors do not shows“all of the limitations
`arranged or combined in the same wayas recited in the claim”, and thus cannot be considered
`to anticipate any of the Claims of the ‘812 patent.
`
`Guideline at 5-14 — 5-15
`
`Although this guideline uses the words “point of interest”, the disclosed “point of interest”is
`incompatible with the “points of interest” recited in Claim 10.
`
`1
`
`

`

`The guideline at 5-14 identifies “points of interest” as “scenic routes, historical sites, national
`parks, and recreational areas”. However, Claim 10 requires, inter alia, “a record associated
`with a user selected point of interest, the record containing at least connection data” and also
`an interface “to establish a communications connection with the selected point of interest
`using the connection data.” The recited “points of interest” are incompatible with the “points
`of interest” shownin guideline 5-14, for which there is no communication connection. Thus,
`for at least this reason this guideline cannot anticipate Claim 10.
`
`Guideline at 6-2 — 6-3
`
`This guideline also misses limitations of Claim 10, including the limitation “an interface for
`allowing a user entry to cause a lookup of the connection data in the record to establish a
`communications connection with the selected point of interest using the connection data.”
`Thus, for at least this reason this guideline cannot anticipate Claim 10.
`
`Guideline at 6-4 — 6-5
`
`This guideline also fails to teach the recited “communications connection”.
`
`Further, this guideline teaches an ability for the driver to conduct a search. Adjacent the
`graphic on page 6-4it states it will “Allow the drivers to select preferences which reflect their
`current information needs.” However, page 6-4 uses the word “preferences”to actually refer
`to a “search criteria”. This use of “preferences”is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`Per MPEP §2111, claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`with the specification.” (emphasis added).
`In the specification, “preferences” are part of a user
`profile and are not simply a temporary search criteria typed in to indicate a user’s “current
`information needs.” Rather, “preferences” actually refers to real preferences that have been
`identified by the user. For example,col. 4, Il. 66-67 refers to “user preferences such as
`preferred types of restaurants, shops, entertainments, etc.” Figure 3 (below) showsa set up
`screen in which a user selects preferences. Once entered intothe system, the preferences
`remain in place during use. While the claims aren’t limited to specific embodiments,it is
`inconsistent with the specification to refer to “preferences” as only “reflect[ing] their current
`information needs” such as the user-generated search criteria shownin this guideline.
`
`For at least these reasonsthis guideline cannot anticipate Claim 10.
`
`

`

`Guideline at 6-6 — 6-7
`
`This guideline fails to teach at least the recited “processor configured to suggesta plurality of
`points of interest based on the user preference data”, among other limitations.
`
`Also, however, althoughthis guideline teaches some kind of communication with a destination,
`it gives no hint as to how such communication comes about, and thus doesn’t teach the recited
`structure. Also, page 6-7 states, “Some people may prefer direct communication with the
`destination”. Thus, this guideline teaches that its device does NOT engagein such direct
`communication, which direct communication would include the telephone number connection
`data and connection recited in Claims 16 and 17.
`
`Summary
`
`In summary, the guidelines do not teachall of the recited limitations. More certainly, no single
`guideline shows “all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same wayas recited in the
`claim”, which is required for a rejection under §102.
`
`

`

`Serial No.: 90/013,239
`Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.: 7,593,812
`Attorney Docket No.: 1334-016.902
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`| hereby certify that true and correct copies of the document entitled APPLICANT
`
`INITIATED INTERVIEW REQUEST FORM, and all supporting documentsfiled therewith, are being
`
`sent by First Class Mail on 3 December, 2014 to the attorney for the third party requester,
`
`addressed as follows:
`
`Paul R. Hart
`
`Erise IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd.
`
`Suite 200
`
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`
`KLEIN, O EILL & SINGH, LLP
`
`18200 Von Karman, Suite 725
`Irvine, CA 92612
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.