DOW JONES REUTERS BUSINESS INTERACTIVE, LLC v. ABLAISE LTD. et al

Filing 30

Attachment 6

SURREPLY to in Support of its Proposed Claim Construction filed by ABLAISE LTD., GENERAL INVENTORS INSTITUTE A, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Seth A. Northrop in Support of Ablaise LTD. and General Inventions Institute A, Inc.'s Markman Sur-Reply Brief in Support of its Proposed Claim Construction# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, Declaration of Seth A. Northrop# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 6 Exhibit Exhibit E to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 7 Exhibit Exhibit F to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 8 Exhibit Exhibit G to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 9 Exhibit Exhibit H to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 10 Exhibit Exhibit I to Declaration of Seth Northrop# 11 Affidavit Second Affidavit of Christian B. Hicks Regarding Claim Construction)(Downey, Jeffrey)

Download PDF

DOW JONES REUTERS BUSINESS INTERACTIVE, LLC v. ABLAISE LTD. et al Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 8 Doc. 30 Att. 6 EXHIBIT E Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 2 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In *e Patent Application of Andrew M. RITCl3.E et a1 Serial No. 081647,769 Any. Ref.: 1561-27 Group: 2771 : *********** August 20,1999 Assistant Commissioner for Patents Washington, DC 20231 Sir: AMENDMENT i In response to the Ofc Action dated 02/22/99, please amend the above-identified fie application as shown below: IN THE TITLE: Please change the title to read: \ --INTERNET S VICE OF DIFFEIiENTLY FORMATTED VIEWABLE DATA SIGNALS INCLUDING COMMANDS FOR BROWSER EXECUTION--. \ IN TBE CLAIMS 9 without prejudice or disclaimer so as to reduce the number of pending issues: 362979 . , : ,. I ' 304 , . Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 3 of 8 ... - . ,. . . . .. . . .. . ,. __. .. - .. .. .. . . . . . .Andrew M. RTTCHIE et a1 Serial No. 08/647,769 Please amend the form of independent claims 1and 13 as shown below to overcome outstanding formal grounds o f rejection: (Thrice Amended) Apparahs for serving output signals from a serving device to sing devices connected to a network, wherein said output signals represent said apparatus comprising: requests from browsing clients that define a request for specified viewable data; means for storing a plural rmatting types of data defining respectively ortions of said viewable data; corresponding predetermined form instructions; and means for supplying output signals to the requesting browsin derived from said -2362979 305 Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 4 of 8 *AndrewM. RITCHIE et a i . . Serial No. 081647,769 le by each browsing device so as to display viewable data in accordance with om browsing clients that define a request for specified viewable ng types of data defining respectively corresponding reading content data representing said ih selected part of said content data wt [an independently s one of said types of formatting processed data. -3 362919 Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 5 of 8 . ... . ... .. . . . . .. . ... .. . .. ._ - . , - .. . . ...- .... - . . . .. -Andrew M. RITCEflE et a1 . . Serial No.08/647,769 REMARKS Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested. Initially, the Examines's attention is drawn to the attached Form PTO-1449 and IDS fee for this stage of prosecution together with a copy of two additional prior art references recently cited by the French Patent Office in a correspondingFrench application. Official consideration and citation of these additional references is respectfully requested. In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. $112, second paragraph, the format of this claim has been amended so as to more definitely state what is meant by "independently selected". Similar changes have been made to the corresponding independent method claim. 13. A new more descriptive title has also been effected by the above amendment. Accordingly, aI1outstanding formal grounds of objectiodrejection are now beIieved to have been overcome. The rejection of claims 1 and21-56 under 35 U.S.C. $103 as allegedly "obvious" based on the combination of Meske '852 and Collins '978 is respectfully traversed. To reduce and simplify outstmding issues, claims 25-33 and 41-49 have been cancelled without prejudice. Accordingly, this ground of rejection will be discussed with respect to the remaining claims 1,21-24,3440 and 50-56. -4362979 ! ' 307 Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 6 of 8 . . .. , __ . . . . .. . . .I"_. .. . .- . . .. - . - . .._ - .... , +Andrew RXTCME et a1 M. Serial No. 08/647,769 Claims 1 and 13 clearly specify a new advantage achieved by the irivention, namely that text and/or graphics data (see 1104, 1105; Figure 11) need not be especially formatted for serverbrowser cokmnication (e.g., in HTML for transmission over the internet). Moreover, the formatting of the tedgraphics data is not restricted to a single type (as taught by Meske) but is independently selected (from table 1f 03) during processing at the server. It is noted that the hs Examiner's interview summary of 14 August 1998 records that t i is not taught by Meske. Such selection may be on the basis of user information provided from the browser (with or without the assistance of a user database in the server) but the invention is not so limited. As will be appreciated, this give a clear advantage over the teaching of Meske in that it renders the text/graphics data suitable for a multitude of uses rather t a a mere single use (e.g., hn the News article information system described in Meske). Even if it were the case that the reader were to adapt Meske so as to dedicate the server to the use described in the present application (i.e., "on-line" shopping), this would not result in the claimed invention as the present application does not concern dedication to any one category of use; it allows the server to format tedgraphics data for many different uses. In other words, Meske does not disclose or suggest the processing of a selected part the tedgraphics data (content data) with a type of formatting data in the case where the type of formatting data is selected indeoendent of the content data. T&ng to Collins, a combination of Meske with the teaching of this document is not only completely inappropriate but does not lead to, or even point towards the present invention. -5362979 308 Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 7 of 8 Andrew . RITCHIE et a1 % i Serial No.081647,769 . Collins concerns the processing ofalreadv formatted text data (bas<cally the font of the text) in order to render the data compatible for use by two computers having different font interpreters (see column 2, line 60 to column 3, line 17 and column 4, lines 28 to 33). It has no application to serverlbrowsercommunication as i the present application in which n communication occurs using a common format (Le., "mark up" language such as HTML). Moreover, the raw text data in the present application is effectively unformatted and the invention provides an intelligent and interactive method of conducting this formatting. I n contrast Collins merely converts a previously formatted document to one which can be understood by a receiving computer. Hence Collins completely misses an advantage ofthe present application, namely that effectively unformatted data may be formatted on the basis of previous information received from the receiving computer (the browser). Moreover, it follows that were the teaching of Meske and Collins to be combined (despite belonging to wholly diverse fields of technology), the result would be that the processing of the content data would be on the basis of a predetermined type of formatting, in that the type of formatting necessary would be effectively defined by the content data (as the content data contains text together with its font information) and not a type independent form the content d a h The Examiner's contention that Collins teaches combination of content data with independently selected formatting data is not understood. If this results ffom the Examiner's earlier reading ofthe claim language as being indefinite, then it is hoped that the clarifying claim amendments above cure this objection. -6362979 309 Case 1:06-cv-01015-JR Document 30-7 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 8 of 8 I.___ ... . - .. . . . _. , - . _. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . __ .. -. . . -- ' I AndrewM.RITCKIEeta1 Serial No. 08/647,769 Note is taken of the Examiner's citation of column 10, l i e s 1-28 of Collins in support of the use of the teaching of Collins for other purposes. However, with respecf,the applicant cannot see how it canbe read in this manner. The cited passage merely seems to suggest that the Collins module can be used as part of a more general item of software. It does not suggest the Collins teaching could have any more general application by itself, its use is clearly restricted to font compatibility. With respect to independent claims 34 and 50, the alleged combination of Meske and Collins is believed inappropriate for reasons already given above. Accordingly, this entire application is now believed to be in allowable condition and a formal Notice to that effect is respectfully solicited. Respectfully submitted, NXXON & VANDERHYE P.C. By: && i Nixon S. Reg. No. 25,640 1;SN:vc 1100 North Glebe Road, 8th Floor Arlington, VA22201-4714 Telephone: (703) 816-4000 Facsimile: (703) 816-4100 362979 I . 310

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?