Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP. et al
Filing
265
Responsive CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF filed by FileMaker, Inc., Pervasive Software, Inc., Symantec Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - '216 patent, # 2 Exhibit 2 - PTO Amendment, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Reply to PTO, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Response to PTO, # 5 Exhibit 5 - PTO Notice of Reexam, # 6 Exhibit 6 - PTO Dec of Pooch, # 7 Exhibit 7 - PTO Interview Summary, # 8 Exhibit 8 - PTO Dec of Rosenblatt)(Jones, Michael)
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE BRIEF ON
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT 2
:'"?-'\
"",
I
.'..~?
s4
18~' jJ'"LAI
~'~('(
'l
1Z 1 UO IAUS
~ ....
'<",t~~·
1;>1 THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFlCF.
Applicant
Frederic B. Richardson, II[
Serial No.
08/124,718
)
)
)
Filed
September 21. 199J
)
)
For
SYSIHv! FOR SOFTWARE
REGlSTRA TION
Examiner
David C. Cain
Group Art Unit 2202
)
)
)
)
)
)
AMENDIVIENT IN RESPONSE TO JUNE 24 1994 OFFICE ACTION
Hon. Commissioner
of Patents and Tradem:uks
Washing lon, D.C. 20211
Dear Sir:
rn response to the June 24, 1994 Otlice Actioll, please amend the above-capLioned
palent application as li.111ows:
IN THE CLAIMS:
Please cancel Claims
2~~nd 27-29
without prejudice.
/
[n Claim 13, at line 1,
~se
delete "security routine or".
Please amend Claim 1S as follow5:
18.
(Amended)
The regi
'stem of Claim
17, wherein said
0 one Of/Ii
'/oIGr;h1.ernents 0 fernents WblCh are I at I east
enVironment detal01s comprise r
c lO
o
one element which is generally 119
././.
o~/
-1-
UNILOC 0126
UNI000126
Serial No.
Filed
081124,718
September 2i, 1993
Applicant rcspcctfuUy submits that the foregoing remarks arc fully responsive to the
f~;ectiotls raised by the Examiner under 35 U.S.c. § 102 with re~ped to Chml.
Applicant
respectfully requests the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of Claims 1-21,25,26 and 30
lll1der 15 U.S.c. § lO2.
Discussion of Newly Cited Rererence
The Examiner's attention is directed to U.S. 5,291,598 to Grundy submitted herewith
and identified on form P'TO-1449.
requested
The Examiner's con..<;ideration of Grundy is respectfully
Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-21, 25, 26 and 30 of the present
application is patentably distinguished over Grundy for the foHowing reasons,
The key to the present invention as claimed in Claim I, for example, is that a "licensee
unique ID" generated by a local licensee unique IU generating [)leans has matched a licensee
unique 10 generated by a remote licensee unique 10 generating means (see the last four lines
of Claim 1 a..'l filed). This matching requirement reflects the fact that the undeTlying algoriduns
which prOCeSS identifYing iniOmwtion illput into both the local
licens~e
uIliqw: ID generating
means flnd the remote licensee unique TD generating means are the same and that both TO
generating means rely upon the same inl
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?