Application No. 14/057,672
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1, 3-22 and 26-28 are pending. By this Amendment, claims 2, 21-25 and 28 are
`
`canceled, claims 1, 9, 16, 17 and 26 are amended and no newclaimsare added.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`Claims 1-22 and 26-28 were rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as
`
`being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,548,875.
`
`Claims 1-22 and 26-28 were provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
`
`patenting as being unpatentable over claims 98 and 127 of copending Application No.
`
`12/322,615.
`
`Applicants will submit a terminal disclaimer once allowable subject matteris identified.
`
`35 USC § 101
`
`Claims 1, 3-22 and 26-28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse.
`
`Applicants have amended the independent claims to include limitations regarding the structure
`
`that clearly warrant removal of the 101 rejection.
`
`Applicants’
`
`response is based on the Interim Guidelines on Patent Subject Matter
`
`Eligibility promulgated by the USPTO on December 16, 2014.
`
`In view of the Supreme Court
`
`decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., Applicants respectfully
`
`submit that the instant claims recite patentable subject matter under an analysis of Part 1. The
`
`claims do not recite abstract
`
`ideas such as, for example, fundamental economic practices,
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 1
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/057,672
`
`methods of organizing human activities, ideas of themselves, or mathematical relationships or
`
`mathematical formulas. Instead, the claims recite, for example, methodsof wirelessly delivering
`
`digital media from one or moreservers to a wireless device having a digital signal processor for
`
`transmission of media by OFDM,whichis plainly outside of the ideas intended to be deemed
`
`non-patentable by the Supreme Court.
`
`Assuming, arguendo, that the instant claims are not identified as patentable subject
`
`matter under Part 1, the instant claimsrecite significantly more than any abstract ideaitself under
`
`an analysis of Part 2. The claims recite the inventive results of an engineering solution to the
`
`problem of the existing state of wireless delivery of rich media files. As a result, the instant
`
`claims provide an improvementto wireless delivery of rich media technology. Therejection of
`
`the remaining claims should be removed.
`
`35 USC § 103
`
`Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritsch (US Pat.
`
`6,247,130), previously applied, in view of Kochian (US Pat. 6,278,976) previously applied.
`
`Claims 3 and 5-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Fritsch (US Pat. 6,247,130), previously applied, and Kochian (US Pat. 6,278,976) previously
`
`applied, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Park et al. (US Pat. 6,470,030) previously
`
`applied.
`
`Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritsch (US Pat.
`
`6,247,130), previously applied, and Kochian (USPat. 6,278,976) previously applied, and Park et
`
`10
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 2
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/057,672
`
`al. (US Pat. 6,470,030) previously applied, as applied to claim 2, further in view of Lee (US Pat.
`
`6,418,330) previously applied.
`
`Claims 16, 17, 26 and 27 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Gudorf (US Pub. 2002/0116082) previously applied,
`
`in view of Park et al. (US Pat.
`
`6,470,030) previously applied.
`
`Claims 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gudorf
`
`(US Pub. 2002/0116082) previously applied, and Park et al. (US Pat. 6,470,030) previously
`
`applied, as applied to claim 16, further in view of Fritsch (US Pat. 6,247,130) previously applied.
`
`Claims 21 and 28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Fritsch (US Pat. 6,247,130), previously applied, in view of Chenet al. (US Pub. 2003/0115041)
`
`previously applied.
`
`Claim 22 was were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fritsch
`
`(US Pat. 6,247,130), previously applied, and Chen et al. (US Pub. 2003/0115041) previously
`
`applied, as applied to claim 21, further in view of Park (US Pat. 6,470,030) previously applied.
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse. Applicants have canceled claims 2, 21-25 and 28 so the
`
`response will deal with only the currently pending claims.
`
`The Examinerasserts that Fritsch discloses a wireless device capable of receiving rich
`
`media. Referring to the rejections based on Fritsch, Applicants respectfully submit that Fritsch
`
`does not disclose electronic wireless devices with enough specificity, as claimed. Particularly,
`
`Fritsch merely discloses a single boilerplate instance where the term “wireless”is used:
`
`11
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 3
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/057,672
`
`As a general overview, the present invention includes a system and method for
`maintaining a music website on the Internet. Consumers may access the website
`via a personal computer or any other wired or wireless Internet access device,
`such as WebTV,personal digital assistant, cellular telephone, etc., to obtain a
`variety of services and products.
`
`(Fritsch, col. 2, 1. 64 — col. 3, 1. 2, emphasis added.) Otherwise, the entirety of Fritsch is directed
`
`towards desktop computer or personal computer (PC) access to a vendor’s website.
`
`It is difficult but necessary that the decision maker forget what he or she has been taught.
`
`.
`
`. about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made (often
`
`as here many years), to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
`
`v, Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
`
`(1984). To reach a proper determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`
`the examiner must step
`
`backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical “person of ordinary skill in the art”
`
`whenthe invention was unknown andjust before it was made. In view ofall factual information,
`
`the examiner must then make a determination whether the claimed invention “as a whole” would
`
`have been obviousat that time to that person.
`
`(MPEP § 2142.) The disclosure of Fritsch does
`
`notrise to the level required such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
`
`to one skilled in the art, at the time the invention was made. Particularly, Fritsch does not
`
`disclose the details necessary for wireless delivery of digital media to electronic wireless devices.
`
`In responseto the Examiner’s position on subject matter in the preamble, applicants have
`
`amended independent claims 1, 9 and 16.
`
`In order to advance prosecution, applicants have
`
`amended the independent claims to read so that the digital signal processor configured for
`
`OFDMis in the body of the claim. The rejection of claims 1 and 3-15 should be removed.
`
`12
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 4
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/057,672
`
`With respect to the rejection of Claims 16, 17-20, 26 and 27 being unpatentable over
`
`Gudorf (US Pub. 2002/0116082) in combination with Park et al. (US Pat. 6,470,030)
`
`and
`
`Fritsch, applicants respectfully traverse. Gudorf discloses a general purpose computer
`
`configured to upload to a content server. The only delivery mechanism that has been mentioned
`
`in the patent is sending and receiving information over the World Wide Web, such as through
`
`web pagesor files. For example, as cited by the Office Action:
`
`First, the user encodes audio compact discs from red book format or an analog
`source into electronic digital files (step 202). The files are preferably compatible
`With MPEG-3 format or Sony’s ATRAC3 format and are encoded with a general
`purpose computer, such as computer 60, or a dedicated device. The user then
`causes end user computer 60 to access the content server 70 via the Internet 80
`(such as by logging onto a Web page) (step 204), supplies its User ID 112 (step
`206) and then uploadsthe files to the content server 70 (step 208).
`
`(Gudorf, para. [0025]; emphasis added.) Particularly, Gudorf does not disclose the details
`
`necessary for wireless delivery over a cellular network of digital media to a wireless device. To
`
`further distinguish the present case, applicants have amended to include a cellular
`
`communications network. The term “cellular” does not appear in Gudorf. As Gudorfis silent as
`
`to any of the details of how wireless delivery over a cellular network of digital media to a
`wireless device might be implemented,the rejections of Claims 16, 17-20, 26 and 27 should be
`
`removed.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 5
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 5
`
`

`

`In viewof the foregoing, it is submitted that this applicationis in condition for allawance.
`
`Favorable consideration and prompt allowance ofthe application are respectfully requested.
`
`The Examiner is invited to telephone the undersigned if the Examiner beheves tt would
`
`Application No. 14/057,672
`
`be useful to advance prosecution.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`2
`
`3=
`SEER eam BASE
`
`Sedo
`
`3g T
`
`homas G. Dickson
`a
`Registration No. 51616
`
`Customer No, 24113
`Patterson Thuente Pedersen, PA.
`4800 IDS Center
`80 Seuth 8th Street
`Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402-2100
`Telephone: 612.349.3004
`
`i4
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 6
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1065
`Page 6
`
`