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)

Download PDF
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<mnation to generate the licensee unique TD. In effect, no ne1.v information is provided to the remote lic.:ehsee unique lU generating means as compared with the information supplied to the local licensee unique ID generating means. Grundy does not disclose or suggest the claimed invCtltiol1. In particular, in Grundy, a "registration code" derived from informfltioll available on the local computer is inputted to a remote computer whick in turn, genc.rat{~s only the registration code but also a u~er an "authorization code" which is a function of not code. The user code is allocated by the remole computer. See, for exampLe. page IS, lines 49 to 58 ofGrund}'~ Fig. 3, box 317, of Grundy relating to the authorization process; and Claim I of Grundy. Because additional inti:mnation is added at the remote computer in Grundy, it follows automatically that a simpLe comparison or match of the registration code derived from Lhe local -4- UNILOC 0129 UNI000129 Serial No. Filed 08/l24,718 September 21, 1993 computer and the authorization code derived from the remote computer is not possible. In order for the local computer to deem the authorization code as valid, the local computer is required to somehuw lake account of the additional information which has been added by the remote computer. Grundy does not describe precisely how this is achieved, but it is clear that the validity of the authorization code of Grundy cannot be determined as a simple match of the regi~tration code with the authorization code. Accordingly, Claim I of the present application which requires a match of the local license unique III with the remote licensee unique iD is palentahly distinguished over the fundamentally more complex: process outlined in Grundy. For similar reasons, Claims 1-12, which depend from Claim 1, and Claims 13-21,25, 26 and 30 are patentably distinguished over Grundy. Summaor Having amended the claims in response Lo the rejections under 35 U.S.CO § 112, and having submitted the J{)reguing Drguments in support of the patentability of the claims, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1-21, 25, 26 and 30 are now in condition for allowance, and Applicant respectfully requests allowance of Claims 1-21, 25, 26 and 30. Respectfully submitter.!, KI'OBRE, MARTENS, OLSON & !lEAR Vated DIF~&t- L{I 19'11- ) By: ~#3~~--L~~UL9;;;~ y T, Sc 'ell gistration No. 31,567 ~ttorne:y of Record 620 Newport Center Drive Si1<.teenth Floor Newport Oeach, CA 92660 (7l4) 760-0404 JTS·8BB7 941219/1 -5- UNILOC 0130 UNI000130

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?