Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Filing
125
NOTICE by Microsoft Corporation re #124 Defendant's MOTION Claim Construction of Filing Exhibits (Attachments: #1 Appendix (Index to Exhibits), #2 Exhibit 101, #3 Exhibit 102, #4 Exhibit 201, #5 Exhibit 301, #6 Exhibit 302, #7 Exhibit 304, #8 Exhibit 305, #9 Exhibit 501, #10 Exhibit 502, #11 Exhibit 504, #12 Exhibit 601, #13 Exhibit 801 (Part 1), #14 Exhibit 801 (Part 2), #15 Exhibit 901, #16 Exhibit 902, #17 Exhibit 903, #18 Exhibit 904, #19 Exhibit 905, #20 Exhibit 1101, #21 Exhibit 1102, #22 Exhibit 1105, #23 Exhibit 1110, #24 Exhibit 1114, #25 Exhibit 1115, #26 Exhibit 1116, #27 Exhibit 1201, #28 Exhibit 1301, #29 Exhibit 1302, #30 Exhibit 1303, #31 Exhibit 1304, #32 Exhibit 1305, #33 Exhibit 1401, #34 Exhibit 1402, #35 Exhibit 1403, #36 Exhibit 1404, #37 Exhibit 1405, #38 Exhibit 1406, #39 Exhibit 1407, #40 Exhibit 1408, #41 Exhibit 1409)(Miner, Curtis)
Exhibit 902
No
90009286
In addition
did not explicitly
it
Attorney
with regard
describe
second
a
would have been obvious
made
to
Action
at
in
storage
message
and prove more
the motivation
server in the office
to
rationale
document storage instead of
in
as
a
a large office
the
Morgan
states that
server for providing
that
the
in
Morgan
electronic
Office
server to provide
203 may be
storage
was
message
system
using an additional
document
local
Office
PD05514AW
the art at the time the invention
in
203
environment
modify the communication
1
No
Docket
providing mailbox storage but that
for
skill
of document storage
The Offices
efficient
of Claim
one having ordinary
the manner
pages 6 and 7
electronic
to
server
one of the computers 102 or 105
operate
document
the host
to
is
Application
juste
iied
with large data transfer requirements
Morgan
system taught by
Office
Action
at
as
page 7
emphasis added
the
destination
originating
computers
102 or
203
a
Third
105
would provide
person of ordinary
was made note
costly
is
remote location
that
that
compared
to
in
that
in
the
create
a
statements
made
in
15
line
the
that
sends
unclear
both
the
in
in
the
document
Offices
addition
to
hypothetical
the
during
line
54
Second
separate
why
the
document memory
would
that
create
duplicative
storage
wasteful
If
of the document received by the server 101
was
filed
in late
1995
today would have been discouraged
analysis of the pending
and
the
was made would have
application
Detailed
Column 5
to
submitted that a person of ordinary skill
Description
the
4
document by the originating party
system
only storage
requires additional
part to the Detailed
hindsight
or suggest
the art at the time the invention
the
the art at the time
in
when communications
to store
the documents
at
network transmissions
For the host server limitation of Claim
citing
Column
at
document storage
hypothetical
computer 102 or 105 then
were slow and
a
skill
instead suggesting that the
the invention
101
server
it
in
of Morgans
the
recognized that the Offices
Office
Morgan
affirmatively given the
party
information to
See
it
because
teach
to
is
mode
is
server
Morgans
Instead
fails
sends a request for a data unit to another server or any other computer
document transmission
the
Morgan
First
is
server 101
is
office
disagrees
respectfully
is
Owner
Patent
1
the Office
of the 899 patent
Description
claims
Page 10 of 13
bases
its
Patent
position
Owner
on obviousness
respectfully
by
submits
of the `899 patent should not be used
to
ordinary skill
person having
communication
102105
art at
the
art
unit
fails
still
as
to
submits that
teach
to
203
or
a
modify Morgans
to
one of the
computers
even if such suggested
a
suggest
1 Thus Claim
recited in Claim
to
mailbox
1
of
a
user
not obvious and
patentable over the prior art of record
In regard to Claim
inter
a
alia
for storing
host server
the
first
2
the Office
repeats the
communication
in
same
a
with
server
forwarding
the
wherein the store comprises a clientserver program
above
with regard to the
communication
for
the
is
communication
respectfully
New
server
art
prior
communication
Claims
among
Claims
and
2
the
14
and
16
recite
communication
New
respectively
claims recite patentable features
respective parent claims
reply
on
original
Allowance
Claim
is
based
to
of record
to
server
2
request for the
data unit
first
communication
the
store
server
The arguments presented
teach
or suggest
forwarding
the
a
host server
first
data
to
a
unit
in
request
the
to
and other reasons Claim
for this
Therefore
a
comprising
being operable for in response
server
the
unit
7
the
communication
Claim 15 recites
Patent
New
including
Claim 17
a
also
requested
11
of 13
server
alia a
and
and the
sessionoriented
server
of
whether
to
host
determination
submits that these
respectfully
and nonobvious combinations
recites a
determination
Page
inter
Owner
addition to the novel
in
respectfully
of sessionlessoriented
use
forward the optimized reply or a replica reply
their
a
memory
apply to Claim
similarly
unit
file
communication
by the
data
to
server
Claim 2 recites
submitted as patentable over the prior art of record
protocols
1
unit
of the
failure
a
with
data
first
communication
first
Claim 1
as
rejections
data unit and being operable for in response
communication
by the
2
was made
storage
further
PD05514AW
would not have been obvious
invention
document
Owner
Patent
prior
with the communication
associated
the time the
duplicate
servers
as
made
were
the
in
submits that
respectfully
move or
system to
and operate them
modification
is
Owner
Patent
Therefore
No
Docket
Attorney
is
90009286
it
No
Application
novel
whether
to
new
found
in
and nonobvious combination
send
a
reply or an optimized
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?