Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 540

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #2 Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #9 Exhibit G to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #10 Exhibit H to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #11 Exhibit I to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #12 Exhibit J to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #13 Exhibit K to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #14 Exhibit L to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #15 Exhibit M to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #16 Exhibit N to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #17 Exhibit O to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #18 Exhibit P to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #19 Exhibit Q to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #20 Exhibit R to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, #21 Exhibit S to Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Apple Inc.s Responsive Claim Construction Brief)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

EXHIBIT Q

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Ot~ee
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria. Vitgiaia 22313-1450

APPLICATION NO.

F~LINO DATE

111778,466

07/1~2007

68[03

l

F:RS’I’ NAMED INVENTOR

’ IA’YrORNEY DOCKEq" NO. ]

Moon-Sang .rEONG

7590

Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036

CONFIRMATION NO,

0201-0055

1475
EXAMINER

ART UNIT

PAPER NTJMBER
l

,A,LOA
1

12/16/2009

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. 04107)

APLNDC-WH-A 0000017175

Application No.
11/778,466
Examiner

JEONG, MOON-SANG
Art Unit

JENNIFER N. TO

Interview Summary

Applicant(s)

2195

All participants (applicant, applicant’s representative, PTO personnel):
(1) JENNIFER N. TO.

(3)GEORGE ECKERT.

(2) MENG-AI AN.

(4).MA ENG -HO SHIN
(5~ SEOK-KYUN PARK
(6) KI-SANG LEE.

Date of Interview: 08 December 2009.
Type: a)[--~ Telephonic b)[-] Video Conference
c)l~ Personal [copy given to: 1 )[--I applicant
Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: d)[~] Yes
If Yes, brief description: __

2)[--I applicant’s representative]
e)[] No.

Claim(s) discussed:/.
Identification of prior art discussed: KOKUBO (U.S. PATENT NO. 7,123,945) & SENPUKU (U.S PUBLICATION
2005/0083642).
Agreement with respect to the claims f)[--~ was reached, g)~;~ was not reached, h)[~ N/A.
Substance of interview inc[uding description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was
reached, or any other comments: See Continuation Sheet.
(A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims
allowable, if available, must be attached. Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims
allowable is available, a summary thereof must be attached.)
THE FORMAL WRITTEN REPLY TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST INCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
INTERVIEW. (See MPEP Section 713.04). Ifa 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. See Summary of Record of Interview
requirements on reverse side or on attached sheet.

IMeng-Ai An/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
PTOL-413 (Rev. 04-03)

Interview Summary

~

Paper No. 20091208

APLNDC-WH-A 0000017176

Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
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 wiih regard to an applicetlen musl be made of record in the
application whether or not an agreement v, fth the examiner was reached at the interview.
Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
Paragraph
warranting favorable aclien must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office acHen as specified in §§ 1.11 t, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. f 32)

37 CFR §f.2 Business to be transacted in wdting.
All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in wriling. The personal attendance of epplicanls or their etlorneys 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 Ihe 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 an 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 melter 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 actior~s or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
substance of an interview is comple’0ely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
The Interview Summary Form shalt 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 nexl official cemmunicetion. If addilional comespondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other
circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly slier the interview rather than with the next official communication.
The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
- Application Number (Sedes Code and Serial Number}
- Name of applicant
- Name of examiner
- Dateof interview
- Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
- Name of participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
- An indication vCnether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
- An identification of the specific pdor 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 aclion)
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, lhat the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordaticn 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 Ihe interview.
A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
1 ) A brief descdpfion of the nature of any exhibil 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 verbatiro 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 conlext of lhe 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 applicanl’s record of the substance of an interview. If the record is eel complete and
accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
Exaroiner to Check for Accuracy
If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the exan~ner 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 w~th the date and the examiner’s initials.

APLNDC-WH-A 0000017177

Continuation Sheet (PTOL-413)

AppliCation No. ~1/776,466

Continuation of Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an
agreement was reached, or any other comments: (1) The details discussion between examiners and applicants with
regarding mapping "music backgroung play object" as recited in claim 1 with the teaching of "music icon" as taught in
KOKUBO. Examiner suggested to further include the definition of "a music background play object" as "wherein the
music background play objects including an application module includes at least one applet" as argued during the
interview to distinct from the icon as taught by KOKUBO. (2) The teaching of switching from the MP3 mode to a stanby
mode while the playing of the music file continue by KOKUBO and SENPUKU was discussed. Examiners point out
that KOKUBO teaching of switching from the MP3 mode to another mode while the playing of the music file continues,
and SENPUKU teaching of switching from an active mode to a standby mode. (3) The obvious type doucble patenting
over U.S. Patent 7,526,558 was discussed. Examiners agreed to re-introduce the obvious type double patenting
rejection as previously indicated in the office action mail dated 05/27/2009 to explain the obvious reasons in view of the
claims filed 10/30/2009 to make the records clear. In additon, applicants also mentioned to re-introduce the limitation of
"generating a music backgroud play object in a standby mode" as an alternated way of overcome the prior arts of
record.

APLNDC-WH-A 0000017178