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)

Download PDF
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?