`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`90/014,071
`
`01/19/2018
`
`8494581
`
`02100.0216—00000
`
`1006
`
`03/05/2018
`7590
`73552
`S chwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/SEC
`1211 SW Fifth Ave.
`Suite 1900
`Portland, OR 97204
`
`W
`
`FERRIS HL FRED 0
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`03/05/2018
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2013
`FedEx v. N
`Case |PR2017-00729
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 1
`
`IV Exhibit 2013
`FedEx v. IV
`Case IPR2017-00729
`
`
`
` IJNI TED S TATES PATEN T AND TRADEIIWK QFFI CE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. EMMSU
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`vuwmusptogov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER‘S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLF§
`
`901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001 -4413
`
`EX PARTEREEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMI'I'I'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014 071.
`
`PATENT NO. 8 494 581.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-O4)
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 2
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`
` - 90/014,071 8494581
`
`Order Granting Request For
`E
`_
`A u _
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`“mm”
`rt
`nIt
`FRED FERRIS III
`3992
`
`
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`
`The request for ex parte reexamination filed 19 January 2018 has been considered and a determination has
`been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
`determination are attached.
`
`Attachments: a)I:I PTO-892,
`
`b)IXI PTO/SB/O8,
`
`c)I:I Other:
`
`1. IXI The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.
`
`RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:
`
`For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
`Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITI'ED.
`If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
`is permitted.
`
`[Fred Ferris/
`
`/James Menefee/
`
`fHetul Patel/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`if third oart
`cc:Reouester
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`reouester
`
`PTOL-471G(Rev. 01-13)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20180214
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 3
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 3
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Decision on Request
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 18—20 and 24 of United States Patent
`
`Number 8,494,581 B2 issue to Barbosa et al is raised by the request for ex parte reexamination.
`
`The requested claims will be reexamined.
`
`The examiner has considered if a substantial new question of patentability has been
`
`raised by the following prior art references:
`
`US. Patent No. 6,971,063 to Rappaport et al. (“Rappaport”)
`
`US. Patent No. 6,633,900 to Khalessi et al. (“Khalessi”)
`
`US. Patent No. 5,080,064 to Brockman et al. (“Brockman”)
`
`US. Patent No. 4,592,322 to Bernard (“Bernard”)
`
`Issue(s) Raised by Request
`
`
`Issue 1:
`
`Requester alleges that Rappaport alone raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability with regard to claims 18—20 and 24 of the ‘581 patent. Rappaport was filed on the
`
`on May 26, 1999 and predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Rappaport was before the examiner
`
`during the original prosecution which lead to the issue of the '581 patent but Rappaport was
`
`never used in the context of a rejection against the claims.1
`
`1 In IPR2017-00729 petitioner cited Rappaport in three grounds of rejection.
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 4
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 4
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`Issue 2:
`
`Requester alleges that Rappaport in combination with Khalessi raises a substantial
`
`new question of patentability with regard to claim 20 of the ‘581 patent. Rappaport was filed on
`
`the on May 26, 1999 and predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Khalessi was filed April 26, 2000
`
`and also predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Rappaport was before the examiner during the
`
`original prosecution which lead to the issue of the '581 patent but Rappaport was never used in
`
`the context of a rejection against the claims. Khalessi was not before the examiner during the
`
`original prosecution of the '581 patent.2
`
`
`Issue 3:
`
`Requester alleges that Brockman in combination with Bernard raises a substantial
`
`new question of patentability with regard to claims 18, 19 and 24 of the ‘581 patent. Brockman
`
`was filed on the on September 15, 1997 and predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Bernard was
`
`filed August 4, 1994 and also predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Neither Brockman nor
`
`Bernard were before the examiner during the original prosecution of the '581 patent.
`
`
`Issue 4:
`
`Requester alleges that Brockman in combination with Bernard and Khalessi raises
`
`a substantial new question of patentability with regard to claim 20 of the ‘581 patent. Brockman
`
`was filed on the on September 15, 1997 and predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Bernard was
`
`filed August 4, 1994 and also predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Khalessi was filed April 26,
`
`2000 and also predates the filing of the ‘581 patent. Neither Brockman, Bernard nor Khalessi
`
`were before the examiner during the original prosecution of the '581 patent.
`
`2 Khalessi was likewise cited in IPR2017-00729.
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 5
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 5
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Background
`
`Claims 18—20 and 24 are being requested in the instant Request for Reexamination and
`
`are current claims in United States Patent Number 8,494,581 issued to Barbosa et al on July 23,
`
`2013 from application 12/547,363 filed on August 25, 2009.3
`
`The ‘581 patent discloses a system and method for managing mobile field assets. (e. g. at
`
`1:23—31) The system includes an enterprise computing device (i.e., a remote server) and
`
`a handheld device employing a communication module and a position module. (e. g. at 6:21—
`
`23, 6:51—55, 7:54—67) The handheld device uses a network to enable real time
`
`communications with the computing device for real—time access to remote programs, assistance
`
`and/or information related to field operations and asset (personnel and inventory)
`
`resource management. (e.g. at Abstract)
`
`As disclosed with regard to Figure 6, field crew personnel can use handheld device
`
`10/ 10’ to access remote management system 58, which can “provide instructions (e. g., templates,
`
`task/punch lists) and/or programs to a group of users.” (e. g. at 7:35—36) The programs are
`
`“centrally stored within one or more databases 61/59” and are directly accessible to the handheld
`
`device 10/ 10’ over the network 55 or indirectly accessible through the remote management
`
`system 58. (e. g. at 7:38—41) The handheld devices are well—known “handheld or palm
`
`computer/PC, PDA, smart phone, [or] mobile telephony devices,” and enable remote access of
`
`industry/ profession—specific applications so “users [can] be more productive while operating in
`
`the field.” (e.g. at 5:45—50)
`
`3 The earliest claimed priority is September 18, 2000.
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 6
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 6
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`The field crew can use the handheld device to gather data particular to an industry and
`
`process it locally or transmit it to the remote computing device for further processing. (e. g. at
`
`6:38—41, 8: 13—3 1) The data includes both field data collected by the device or input by the user
`
`and location data. (e. g. at 7:55—8: 12) The location data can be determined using global
`
`positioning systems, which the ’581 patent admits was “known in the art” and “commercially
`
`available.” Id. at 6:51—67, 8:8—9. In one instance, the data is transmitted to the remote computing
`
`device to “undergo computing operations beyond the resident capabilities of the handheld
`
`device,” where a “limited software program can be used for gathering of data [and a] larger
`
`software application and computing resources [of the remote computing device] may be
`
`necessary to render a comprehensive analysis.” Id. at 8:20—31. After the data is processed, the
`
`results are sent back to the handheld device for use by the field crew. Id. at 7:64—67.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`During the original prosecution which led to the allowance of the ‘581 patent the
`
`examiner initially applied rejections under 35 USC 102 (claims 21—23, 25, 40 and 45—46) and 35
`
`USC 103 (claims 26—28) based on LeVander and LeVander in view of Shaffer respectively.
`
`(FAOM 3/23/12) Responsive to the examiner’s rejection applicants amended claim 40 (issued as
`
`claim 18) to require the following;
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 7
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 7
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`3333
`
`{C31mm53 3*.“madmfi $3.23{3maramx so:3133.£533:
`
`3':
`
`
`3am ‘33“ «3333333:
`
`1133;:
`
`.33 mu33.,
`
`_
`
`:_~:_;.
`
`‘
`
`mwzm 3333.3‘ 33323331 333.3333
`
`‘93:);
`
`one 3333333313id derive Inc, 333d: 333.31 field a, )._.\¢>
`
`
`
`
` ' )1. 131333133333‘1)3; -= '
`
`" -. 33.3% 353333 hwzdheki ‘aww
`
`
`
`fine. Emmi} ‘
`"
`
`
`
`”n
`
`L113“ mum 3:133 33: 3.33.3333 mc 13333.:33113133333233 333:3 33133.3
`
`
`Specifically, as amended the claim required that the handheld device be located
`
`geographically distant from the server, include a means for determining a geographic location of
`
`the hand held deVice, and that the data collected at the field included geographic location of the
`
`hand held deVice.
`
`Patent owner subsequently argued that Shaffer does not disclose using the handheld
`
`deVice to determine a geographical location of the handheld deVice since Shaffer’s system m
`
`not disclose determining a geographical location of the cellular phone, but rather discloses
`
`recording a message from the operator indicating the current (or most recent) location of the
`
`vehicle.” Patent owner concluded that Shaffer combined with LeVander cannot therefore
`
`disclose the recited communicating the field data collected using the handheld deVice and the
`
`geographical location of the handheld deVice to the computing deVice since the recited
`
`geographical location information is determined using the handheld deVice. (Response of 6/21/12
`
`at page 10)
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 8
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`After a Quayle action of 7/19/12 the examiner passed the case to allowance on 3/7/13
`
`citing no specific reasons for allowance.
`
`Thus, based on the prosecution history, even though the examiner did not specifically
`
`comment on the reasons for allowance, prior art with a technological teaching relating to using
`
`the handheld device to determine a geographical location of the handheld device would have
`
`been considered important in determining the patentability of the claims.
`
`Hence, the features noted above relating to distinguishing aspects of the claimed
`
`invention now appear to be disclosed in the newly cited prior art as set forth below.
`
`Analysis
`
`
`Issue 1:
`
`Regarding issue 1, the request alleges that an SNQ with respect to claims 18—20
`
`and 24 is raised based on Rappaport alone. As mentioned above, Rappaport was before the
`
`examiner during the original but prosecution never used in the context of a rejection against the
`
`claims.
`
`Rappaport discloses systems and methods employing a portable handheld computer and
`
`one or more remote server computers for technicians in the field to complete the
`
`“design, deployment, test, optimization, and maintenance cycle required to implement successful
`
`communications networks.” (e. g. at Abstract) Using a handheld computer, a wireless network
`
`technician in the field can model and optimize a wireless network signal within a building or
`
`over a distributed area. (e.g. at 1:12—18, 4:41—5:31, 18:64—19:8) The technician can also take
`
`measurements using the handheld computer and transmit this data along with location data to a
`
`remote server computer. (e.g. at 4:54—5z3, 18:7—18, Fig. 9)
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 9
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 9
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`{xmmm
`
`3.
`
`g
`
`3‘
`
`;
`
`39;:
`
`The technician can view a computer model of the wireless network using the handheld
`
`computer’ s display and make adjustments in the field that can be incorporated into the model
`
`for assessment. (See, e. g. 4:41—48) The technician inputs adjustments into the handheld
`
`computer for manipulation of the model, including “adjustments as to choice of equipment,
`
`placement in the space, and orientation” of equipment. The model is then updated and the
`
`technician can “obtain performance prediction and other valuable information” about the
`
`network as a result of the changes. Therefore, the handheld computer allows the technician to
`
`collect and display the signal properties of the network, manipulate the network components, and
`
`then predict and optimize the network all while in the field. (e. g. at 1:12—18) The data is
`
`transferred between the handheld computer and the remote server computer via a wired or
`
`wireless communication link. (See, e. g. 9:36—41, 14:45—54, 18:59—63) Most importantly,
`
`Rappaport discloses that the handheld devices may be equipped with a position—tracking device
`
`“so that a user’ s movements within the environment may be tracked and displayed,” and so that
`
`the technician operating the handheld computer may know its “precise location”
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 10
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 10
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`while navigating through an environment. (See, e. g. 14:54—64) In other words, Rappaport
`
`appears to disclose the very features relating to a means for determining a geographic location of
`
`the hand held device that were deemed to distinguish claim 18 over the prior art at the time of
`
`allowance.
`
`Since the cited art teaches a substantial portion of the claimed features of at least claim
`
`18, and since these teachings are directly related to subject matter considered as the basis for
`
`patentability of the patent claims, a reasonable examiner would consider evaluation of Rappaport
`
`as important in determining the patentability of the claims over the prior art during the original
`
`‘581 prosecution. As such, it is AGREED that Rappaport alone raises a substantial new question
`
`of patentability, with respect to at least claim 18. Hence, an SNQ is likewise raised for dependent
`
`claims 19, 20 and 24.
`
`
`Issue 2: Regarding issue 2, the request alleges that an SNQ with respect to claim 20 is raised in
`
`view of Khalessi. Khalessi is new art that was not previously before the examiner. As mentioned
`
`above, Rappaport discloses the elements raising an SNQ with regard to independent claim 18
`
`from which claim 20 depends. Relative to claim 20, Khalessi discloses a system for “assigning
`
`work orders, communicating work orders to deployed field personnel, and communicating .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`up—to—date data related to an assigned work order.” (e. g. at 2:20—24, Fig 5 — reproduced below).
`
`In other words, Khalessi appears to disclose the elements of claim 20 relating to enabling
`
`updating of field operation assignments.
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 11
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 11
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`33539? 153mm 2.x; gramme
`wwm‘icg 35:33am to “imam m
`amigmmoii has ham msSwwé to 8m
`$333: an
`
`3‘
`
`$283
`
`
`
`View may first!
`arm mmfiy
`,4.________
`i
`
`,h my;
`
`5 mag-3s» Mil
`wtnvfimcwsw J
`
`1mm
`
`
`.,.,..i.._..uiu....i....
`i
`Rméew‘am
`msgm a 82k 9?
`1 magmas to the
`germ“ my
`E
`
`.
`("”3“
`l
`
`
`
`
`g
`.,
`}f“3)::
`
`z
`
`? MM
`“mafia; am ta- _
`m ‘58» WW
`\‘..,..,_“,.T«.,.w_
`§
`cum.“
`. mm...‘ c.
`H}
`
`:n segxxm in ma swinger: mammag 8'5
`: “a“
`89pm ham kfiséav‘sm‘fi. i»
`3mm was man
`wwwwmwdhwwawhwaw'afiwAwNw<vvuwa‘}
`«gum/5 Size mm asfigwfi $533
`:
`;
`
`1
`
`FIG, 5
`
`Since Khalessi teaches a substantial portion of the claimed features of at least dependent
`
`claim 20, and since these teachings are directly related to subject matter considered as the basis
`
`for patentability of the patent claims, a reasonable examiner would consider evaluation of
`
`Khalessi as important in determining the patentability of the claims over the prior art during the
`
`original ‘581 prosecution. As such, it is AGREED that Rappaport in combination with Khalessi
`
`raises a substantial new question of patentability, with respect to at least claim 20.
`
`Issue 3: Regarding issue 3, the request alleges that an SNQ with respect to claims 18, 19 and 24
`
`is raised based on Brockman in combination with Bernard. As mentioned above, neither
`
`Brockman nor Bernard were before the examiner during the original prosecution of the '581
`
`patent.
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 12
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 12
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Brockman discloses a system that includes a handheld unit (110), a Wireless link (120),
`
`and remote resources (105, 115) or assisting both salespersons interacting with
`
`prospective buyers and sales managers. (e.g. at Fig. 1, 1:23—3:29, 4:23—42, 5:49—57, 5:58—63)
`
`Brockman discloses two different remote resources.
`
`
`
`:‘fifi.
`
`l?
`
`A first remote resource includes a central computer unit providing access to “scripts” and
`
`other data to the handheld unit. (e. g. at 4:23—5:32) A second remote resource includes an external
`
`data store such as a server at a vehicle manufacturer, credit bureau, or credit granting institution.
`
`(e.g. at 4:35—42, 5:33—57, 6:33—41) Using the remote resources, Brockman's system allows the
`
`handheld unit to assist salespersons and sales managers by:
`
`(i) permitting the seller to retrieve useful information such as inventory availability from
`a sales information data store; (ii) displaying option—sensitive prompts to aid the seller in
`discussing specific vehicles under consideration; (iii) accessing remote communications
`links to external data sources to obtain information on credit—worthiness of the prospect,
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 13
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 13
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`financing terms, and availability; (iv) displaying motivational information such as the
`percentage likelihood of consummating the sale successfully; (V) providing a
`communications link with management personnel.
`
`(e. g. at Abstract). A salesperson can send data to and receive data from the remote
`
`resources using the handheld unit and engage a prospective buyer While the handheld
`
`unit prompts the salesperson to collect data and interact with a buyer. (e. g. at 6:42—7:22)
`
`Brockman discloses providing a sequence of steps to the handheld unit using “scripts,” which
`
`guide the salesperson through a sales communication process. (e. g. at 6:42—63) Brockman
`
`discloses that the scripts are accessed from the central computer unit, either in real—time or using
`
`a periodic update process. (e.g. at 6:42—63, 13:17—14:40, 14:7-40)
`
`Importantly, prior art Bernard discloses a communication device which includes a
`
`microprocessor for coordinating the functions of the GPS engine, radio packet antenna, and
`
`cellular telephone antenna with those of the PDA. (e.g. at 4:16—5z8; 9:38—10:29, Figs. 2&3)
`
`
`
`Bernard also discloses that the communication media of the device can be used interchangeably
`
`together such that the GPS engine can determine the location of the device, and that location
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 14
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 14
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`data, together with other data, can be transmitted over a cellular wireless data network. (e. g. at
`
`16:38—65) Therefore, Bernard provides additional wireless capabilities for PDAs, allowing them
`
`to communicate over different networks and determine their geographic location. This, according
`
`to Bernard, “greatly enhance[s] the utility of the PDAs” and “provides a powerful processing
`
`device with convenient access to vast stores of information over a variety of possible media.”
`
`(e.g. at 1:50—56)
`
`In other words, Brockman in combination with Bernard appears to disclose the very
`
`features relating to a means for determining a geographic location of the hand held device that
`
`were deemed to distinguish claim 18 over the prior art at the time of allowance.
`
`Since the cited art teaches a substantial portion of the claimed features of at least claim
`
`18, and since these teachings are directly related to subject matter considered as the basis for
`
`patentability of the patent claims, a reasonable examiner would consider evaluation of Brockman
`
`in combination with Bernard as important in determining the patentability of the claims over the
`
`prior art during the original ‘581 prosecution. As such, it is AGREED that Brockman in
`
`combination with Bernard raises a substantial new question of patentability, with respect to at
`
`least claim 18. Hence, an SNQ is likewise raised for dependent claims 19, 20 and 24.
`
`
`Issue 4: Regarding issue 4, the request alleges that an SNQ with respect to claim 20 is raised in
`
`view of Khalessi. As noted above, Brockman in combination with Bernard disclose elements
`
`raising an SNQ with regard to independent claim 18 from which claim 20 depends. As further
`
`noted above, and relative to claim 20, Khalessi was not previously before the examiner and
`
`discloses a system for “assigning work orders, communicating work orders to deployed field
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 15
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 15
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`personnel, and communicating .
`
`.
`
`. up—to—date data related to an assigned work order.” (e.g. at
`
`2:20—24, Fig 5 — reproduced above). In other words, Khalessi appears to disclose the elements of
`
`claim 20 relating to enabling updating of field operation assignments.
`
`Since Khalessi teaches a substantial portion of the claimed features dependent claim 20,
`
`and since these teachings are directly related to subject matter considered as the basis for
`
`patentability of the patent claims, a reasonable examiner would consider evaluation of Brockman
`
`in combination with Bernard and Khalessi as important in determining the patentability of the
`
`claims over the prior art during the original ‘581 prosecution. As such, it is AGREED that
`
`Brockman in combination with Bernard and Khalessi raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability, with respect to at least claim 20.
`
`Hence, reexamination of the requested claims is ordered.
`
`Scope of Reexamination
`
`The existence of a substantial new question of patentability is not precluded by the fact
`
`that a patent or printed publication was previously cited by or to the Office or considered by the
`
`Office. That is, the reliance on previously cited/considered art, i.e., "old art," does not necessarily
`
`preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) that is based
`
`exclusively on that old art. Rather, determinations on whether a SNQ exists in such an instance
`
`shall be based upon a fact—specific inquiry done on a case—by—case basis. (MPEP 2216)
`
`In the present instance, an SNQ appears to exist based on the existence of newly
`
`uncovered prior art that was not before the examiner at the time of examination, and/or old art
`
`that is being view in a new light based on its combination with new art.
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 16
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 16
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Conclusion
`
`Extensions of Time
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings
`
`because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that ex parte reexamination
`
`proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR1.550(a)). Extensions of time in
`
`ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`Waiver of Right to File Patent Owner Statement
`
`In a reexamination proceeding, Patent Owner may waive the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530
`
`to file a Patent Owner Statement. The document needs to contain a statement that Patent Owner
`
`waives the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent Owner Statement and proof of service in
`
`the manner provided by 37 C.F.R. 1.248, if the request for reexamination was made by a third
`
`party requester, see 37 C.F.R 1.550. The Patent Owner may consider using the following
`
`statement in a document waiving the right to file a Patent Owner Statement:
`
`Patent Owner waives the right under 37 C.F.R. 1.530 to file a Patent Owner Statement.
`
`Amendment in Reexamination Proceedings
`
`Patent owner is notified that any proposed amendment to the specification and/or claims
`
`in this reexamination proceeding must comply with 37 CFR 1.530(d)—(j), must be formally
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 17
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 17
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`presented pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.52(a) and (b), and must contain any fees required by 37 CFR
`
`§1.20(c). See MPEP § 2250(IV) for examples to assist in the preparation of proper proposed
`
`amendments in reexamination proceedings.
`
`Service of Papers
`
`After the filing of a request for reexamination by a third party requester, any document
`
`filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on the other party (or
`
`parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are merged) in the reexamination
`
`proceeding in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. See 37 CFR 1.550.
`
`Notification of Concurrent Proceedings
`
`The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to
`
`apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving
`
`Patent No. 8,494,581 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third party
`
`requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or
`
`proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2207, 2282
`
`and 2286.
`
`All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed:
`
`By Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 18
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 18
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/014,071
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Alexandria, VA 223 13— 1450
`
`By FAX to:
`(571) 273—9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand:
`Customer Service Window
`
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Central
`
`Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272—7705.
`
`/Fred Ferris/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees:
`
`/James Menefee/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`/Hetul Patel/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 19
`
`Exhibit 2013 Page 19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
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.
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
