Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 147

NOTICE by Microsoft Corp. of PTO Orders in Microsoft's Request for Reexamination of Anascape Patents (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Joncus, Stephen)

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 147 Att. 2

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 1 of 36

EXHIBIT B TO:

DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF PTO ORDERS IN MICROSOFT'S REQUESTS FOR REEXAMINATION OF ANASCAPE PATENTS

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 2 of 36

..~ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRAEMA OFFCE
.. Commissioner

t-,..,.."............--,.........,..,..,.._.-._.._._............................-.......-.........--....."".,.....,....-_.,.-..,......._......-.-..-...-....._,_..,....._....._.._._..______._ for Patents
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

United States Patent and Trademark Offce

P.O.8oX1450
VW.Aspto.gOl

DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)

STEPHEN J. JONKUS
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 SW SALMON STREET, SUITE 1600 PORTLAND, OR 97204

Transmittl of Communication to Third Part Requester Inter Partes Reexamination
REEXMINATION CONTROL NUMBER 95/000.222.
PATENT NUMBER 6.344.791.

TECHNOLOGY CENTER 3999.
ART UNIT 3993.

Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and

Trademark Offce in the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this

communication, the third part requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947. If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive submission by any ex parte third part requester is permitted.

All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses
given at the end of the communication enclosed with this transmittaL.

PTOL-2070 (Rev.07-ü)

'. UNITED STATES PATENT AN TRAEMAK OFFICE
'J

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 3 of 36

COMMISSIONER F'OR PATENTS UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OF'F'ICE

P.O. Box 1450
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1450 ww.Ullo.gov

I CONTROL NO.

I FILING DATE

I PATENT IN REEXAMINATION

I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.

95/000,222
BRAD ARMSTRONG 15487 JOSEPH ROAD
TYLER, TX 75707

05/10/07

6,344,791
EXMINER

Flanagan, Beverly

I ART UNIT I PAPER

3993
DATE MAILED:

MAILED

INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION

AUG - 2 Z007
CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT

BELOW/ATTACHED YOU WILL FIN A COMMCATION FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AN TRAEMAR OFFICE OFFICIA(S) IN CHARGE OF THE PRESENT REEXAINATION PROCEEDING.
All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-car addresses given at the end of
this communication.

PTOL-2071 (Rev.07-04)

"..

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147
Control No.

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 4 of 36
Patent Under Reexamination
6,344,791 81 ET AL.

ORDER GRANTING/DENYING REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REEXAMINA TION

95/000,222 Examiner
Beverly M. Flanagan

Art Unit

3993

-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --

The request for inter partes reexamination has been considered. Identification of the claims, the references relied on, and the rationale supporting the determination are attached.

Attachment( s):

D PTO-892

IZ PTO/SB/08

DOther:

1. IZ The request for inter partes reexamination is GRANTED.

D An Offce action is attached with this order.
IZ An Office action will follow in due course.

2. D The request for inter partes reexamination is DENIED.
This decision is not appealable. 35 U.S.C. 312(c). Requester may seek review of a denial by petition to the Director of the USPTO within ONE MONTH from the mailing date hereof. 37 CFR 1.927. EXTENSIONS OF TIME ONLY UNDER 37 CFR 1.183. In due course, a refund under 37 CFR 1.26(c) will be made to requester.

All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the this
Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of

Order.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofce
PTOL-2063 (08/06)

Paper No. --

..

..

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 5 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 2

DECISION GRANTING INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION

Amended/Substitute Request
Receipt of the replacement request filed May 102007 is acknowledged. The
decision below is based upon this replacement request, and not the original request,

filed February 2,2007, which filng date was vacated with the decision of March 10,
2007.

Substantial New Question of Patentabilty

A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-66 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,344,791 to Armstrong (hereinafter "Armstrong '791") is raised by the present
request for inter partes reexamination.

Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in inter partes
reexamination proceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an

applicant" and not to parties in a reexamination proæeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. §
314(c) requires that inter partes reexamination proceedings "wil be conducted with

special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.937). Patent owner extensions of time in inter partes
reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.956. Extensions of time are
not available for third party requester comments, because a comment period of 30 days

from service of patent owner's response is set by statute. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(3).

"

,,

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 6 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 3

Notification of Concurrent Proceedings
The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR
1.985(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent
proceeding, involving U.S. Patent No. 6,344,791 throughoutthe course of

this

reexamination proceeding. The third party requester is also reminded of the ability to
similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of

this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP §§ 2686 and 2686.04.

References Relied Upon
The following prior art documents are relied upon by requester in support of this
request for inter partes reexamination:
1. Knox, UK Published Patent Specification No. 1 412 298 (hereinafter

"Knox");

2. Kaneko et ai', Japanese Laid Open Utility Model Application No. JP S61100844 (hereinafter "Kaneko");

3. Matsumoto et ai', Japanese Laid Open Utility Model Application No. JP
S61-103836 (hereinafter "Matsumoto");
4. Jackson, U.S. Patent No. 3,463,041 (hereinafter "Jackson");

5. Kramer, U.S. Patent No.5, 164,697 (hereinafter "Kramer");
6. Clancy, U.S. Patent No. 4,604,509 (hereinafter "Clancy");

7. Furukawa et ai', Japanese Laid Open Utility Model Application No. JP587760 (hereinafter "Furukawa '760);

..
"

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 7 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 4

8. Brandenberg et a/., U.S. Patent No. 5,231,386 (hereinafter
"Brandenberg");
9. Tanami, Japanese laid-Open Patent Application No. H5-304007

(hereinafter "Tanami");

1 O. Kawashima, Japanese Laid-Open Utility Model Application No. H3-61304
(hereinafter "Kawashima");

11. Furukawa et a/., Japanese Laid Open Utility Model Application No. H656740 (hereinafter "Furukawa '740");
12. Mason, Switch Engineering Handbook (McGraw-Hil, Inc., 1993)

(hereinafter "Switch Engineering Handbook");
13. Meleard et a/., UK Published Patent Application NO.2 156588 A

(hereinafter "Meleard");
14. Sakurai et aI., Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application No. H06-154422

(hereinafter (( Sakurai ))) ;

15. Padula et aI., U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,095 (hereinafter "Padula");

16. Yamaoka, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Disclosure No. H7122073 (hereinafter "Yamaoka");

17. Himoto et a/., European Patent Application EP 0 835676 A 1 (hereinafter
(( Himoto ))).

Requester's Position
The request indicates that the third party requester considers:

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 8 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993
1. Claim 1 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Knox alone;

Page 5

2. Claim 1 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kaneko alone;

3. Claim 1 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Matsumoto alone;
4. Claim 1 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Jackson alone;

5. Claims 1-5,7, 19,34-38,44-46,56,61 and 64 to unpatentable over

Kramer alone;
6. Claims 3-5 and 7 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Clancy;

7. Claim 7 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 and

Clancy;
8. Claim 6 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Brandenberg; 9. Claim 6 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Tanami;
10. Claims 8-13 to be unpatentable over Kramer

taken with Kawashima;

11. Claims 14-18 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa '760;

12. Claims 20 and 21 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Brandenberg;
13. Claims 20 and 21 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa

'740;
14. Claims 1, 19 and 20 to be unpatentable over Furukawa '760 taken with

Furukawa '740 and Switch Engineering;
15. Claims 22-24, 27 and 28 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Meleard;

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 9 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 6

16. Claims 22, 25, 26 and 29-33 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Meleard and Furukawa '760;
17. Claims 31-33 to be unpatentable over Kramer

taken with Meleard,

Furukawa '760 and Sakurai;
18. Claim 39 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Padula;

19. Claims 40-43, 47-55,57-60,62,63,65 and 66 to be unpatentable over

Kramer taken with Furukawa '760;
20. Claims 41-43, 47-55 and 57-60 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Furukawa '760 and Sakurai;
21. Claims 62,63,65 and 66 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Furukawa '760 and Yamaoka;
22. Claims 43, 48, 50 and 53 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Furukawa '760 and Himoto;
23. Claim 10 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa '740 and

Himoto;
24. Claim 21 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa '740 and

Himoto;
25. Claims 27 and 29 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Meleard and

Himoto;
26. Claim 35 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Himoto.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC
.'
..

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 10 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 7

Prosecution History of the Armstrong 1791 Patent
U.S. Patent No. 6,344,791 issued from an application with the Serial No.

09/599,095, which was filed on June 21,2000. The '095 application was a continuation
of an application with the Serial No. 09/122,269, filed on July 24,1998, Now U.S. Patent
No.6, 135,886, which was a continuation-in-part of an application with the Serial No.

08/942,450, filed on October 1, 1997, now U.S. Patent No.6, 102,802.

Substantial New Question (SNQ)
The substantial new questions of patentability with respect to Knox, Meleard,

Kaneko, Matsumoto, Kawashima, Tanami, Furukawa '740, Yamaoka, Himoto, Jackson,
Clancy, Padula, Brandenberg and Switch Engineering Handbook is based on new

teachings, not previously considered or addressed in the prior examination of the patent

or a final holding of invalidity by the Courts. The substantial new question of
patentability with respect to Kramer, Furukawa '760 and Sakurai is based on a patent already cited by the applicant and considered, but neither applied nor commented upon
by the examiner.

A discussion of the specifics now follows:

Claim 1 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Knox alone
It is agreed that consideration of Knox alone raises a substantial new question of

patentability as to claim 1 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in page 22 of the
replacement request, Knox teaches a keyboard that includes a plastic plate or sheet 4

.. "

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 11 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993 formed with a plurality of dome keys 3 arranged to push a conductive layer into

Page 8

engagement with contacts 2 (see Figs. 4 and 5). Variable resistance is established
between the layer 14 and the terminals A-O of the contact track 2 (see page 3, lines 61-

69 and Fig. 4). Knox further teaches that each key can be arranged to act against a
metal spring so that a "snap action" and an audible "click" is obtained when the key is

depressed (see page 4, lines 30-33).

These teachings of Knox were not present in the prosecution of the application
which became the Armstrong '791. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Knox is considered to raise a substantial
new question of patentabilty as to claim 1 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claim 1 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kaneko alone
It is agreed that consideration of Kaneko alone raises a substantial new question

of patentability as to claim 1 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 22-23 of the
replacement request, Kaneko teaches a variable resistance switch 10 that includes an
electro-conductive curved plate 3 (dome cap) adapted to be pressed by

a pushbutton 1

so as to engage a pressure sensitive electroconductive rubber sheet 6 (see page 4,

lines 4-12). When pressed to the center of the generating line 8 on a concave surface
side of the sheet 6, the concave surface is elastically deformed and changes its orientation with a click action to the configuration shown in Fig. 4 (see also Fig. 3 and
page 5, lines 7-11). Kaneko also teaches that "a switch

over point (clock point) is

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC
"

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 12 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 9

provided in the middle of the stroke of the push button so that the operator clearly
recognizes the switching from the off-state to the on-state in the course of the pressing

operation (see page 2, lines 12-16, page 6, lines 2-4 and page 7, lines 4-13). These teachings of Kaneko were not present in the prosecution of the application
which became the Armstrong '791. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kaneko is considered to raise a substantial
new question of patentability as to claim 1 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claim 1 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Matsumoto alone
It is agreed that consideration of Matsumoto alone raises a substantial new

question of patentability as to claim 1 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in page 23 of
the replacement request, Matsumoto teaches a variable resistance sensor that

comprises a rigid support board, a sheet between the board and a resilent dome cap (see Fig. 1 and page 4, lines 9-11). Matsumoto also teaches that the dome cap exhibits
a snap-through tactile feedback, stating "a switch

over point (click point) is provided in

the middle of the stroke of the push button so that the operator clearly recognizes the
switching from the off-state to the on-state in the course of the pressing operation" (see
page 2, lines 12-16, page 6, lines 2-4 and page 7, lines 4-13).

These teachings of Matsumoto were not present in the prosecution of the
application which became the Armstrong '791. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood

that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 13 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 10

whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Matsumoto is considered to
raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 1 of the Armstrong '791

patent.

Claim 1 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Jackson alone
It is agreed that consideration of Jackson alone raises a substantial new question

of patentability as to claim 1 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 23-24 of the
replacement request, Jackson teaches a push button diaphragm switch for a keyboard

formed of a plurality of openings 18 where a metal switch 20 underlies a metal keyboard

base plate 16 and is formed with a plurality of dome-shaped resilently deformable
dimples 22 that project into corresponding openings 18 and serve as keyboard push

buttons (see co/. 1, lines 64-73). The dimples 22 are adapted to engage contact
buttons 30 secured to a contact board 28 and provide snap-through tactile feedback to
the user (see Fig. 3 and co/. 2, lines 25-42).

These teachings of Jackson were not present in the prosecution of the
application which became the Armstrong '791. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood

that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding

whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Jackson is considered to raise a
substantial new question of patentability as to claim 1 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 14 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 11

Claims 1-5, 7, 19,34-38,44-46, 56, 61 and 64 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable

over Kramer alone
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer alone raises a substantial new question

of patentability as to claims 1-5, 7,19,34-38,44-46,56,61 and 64 of Armstrong 791.
As pointed out in page24-27 of the replacement request, Kramer teaches a variable
sensor 3 including a rigid support board 10, supporting a sheet 17 where the sheet is

positioned between the board 10 and a depressible, resilent dome cap providing a
snap-through threshold tactile feedback to the user (see co!. 5, lines 36-48 and co!. 1,

lines 21-35). Kramer also teaches that the board 10 supports electrical circuit traces
11.1 and 11.2 and a means for variable controllng imagery is the control circuit
operating on the basis of variable resistance as a function of applied pressure (see col.

4, lines 61-65 and Fig. 2). Kramer also teaches a spring 20 located on the ceiling
surface of a rubber dome and electricall conductive carbonized foil 14 located to
contact circuit traces 11.1 and 11.2 (see Fig. 1). Kramer also teaches that spring 20,
carbonzied foil 14 and conductive layer 17 are carried by the dome cap and deform

under pressure and the switching device 3 acts as a pressure dependent, variable

sensor as pressure is applied to the pushbutton (see co!. 5, lines 39-48). Kramer also
teaches that the countercontact 16 and spring 20 supply snap-through tactile feedback

through the button to the user (see col. 5, lines 42-48 and co!. 1, lines 21-35). Kramer
also teaches that the dome cap is rubber (see co!. 1, lines 21-35 and col. 5, line 40).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong 791 patent and were considered, but not applied.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 15 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993
Further, there is a substantial

Page 12

likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider

these teaching important in deciding whether or not the claims are patentable.

Accordingly, Kramer is considered to raise a substantial new question of patentabilty as
to claims 1-5, 7,19,34-38,44-46,56,61 and 64 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 3-5 and 7 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Clancy
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Clancy raises a substantial

new question of patentability as to claims 3-5 and 7 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out
in pages 31-32 of

the replacement request, Clancy teaches a dome cap with a

deformable surface having an apex located to contact the sheet (see Figs. 3 and 4). These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Clancy were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Clancy is considered to
raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 3-5 and 7 of the Armstrong
'791 patent.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 16 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 13

Claim 7 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa
'760 and Clancy
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 and Clancy

raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 7 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 32-33 of the replacement request, Furukawa '760 teaches the use

of pressure sensitive switches in a video game controller for a video game machine
which would have output displayed on a television (see paragraph 8).

These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but

not applied. The teachings of Clancy were not present in the prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with
Furukawa '760 and Clancy is considered to raise a substantial new question of
patentability as to claim 7 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claim 6 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Brandenberg
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Brandenberg raises a

substantial new question of patentability as to claim 6 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out
in pages 33-34 of the replacement request, Kramer teaches circuit traces 11.1 and 11.2,

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 17 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 14

as noted above. It is also agreed that Brandenberg teaches interdigitated circuit traces
in pressure sensitive switch constructions (see col. 3, line 68 through co!. 4, line 2).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Brandenberg were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Brandenberg is considered to raise a substantial new question of patentabilty as to claim 6 of the

Armstrong '791 patent.

Claim 6 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Tanami
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Tanami raises a substantial

new question of patentability as to claim 6 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages
35-36 of the replacement request, Kramer teaches circuit traces 11.1 and 11.2, as

noted above. It is also agreed that Tanami teach interdigitated circuit traces in pressure
sensitive switch constructions (see page 6, paragraph 10 and Fig. 2).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Tanami were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 18 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 15

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Tanami is considered to
raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 6 of the Armstrong '791

patent.

Claims 8-13 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Kawashima
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Kawashima raises a

substantial new question of patentability as to claims 8-13 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 36-38 of the replacement request, Kramer teaches variable

pressure sensitive sensors in hand-operated input keyboards on remote transmitters or

for electronic appliances in entertainment electronics that produce active tactile

feedback (see co!. 1, lines 46-54 and co!. 5, lines 42-48). It is agreed that Kawashima
teaches variable resistors in an operating body 10 for finger tip actuation where the operating body or button 10 is of the see-saw type (see page 6, lines 3-9, page 4, lines
24-26, page 5, lines 25 and 26 and Figs. 1, 3 and 4).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Kawashima were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Kawashima is

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 19 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 16

considered to raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 8-13 of the

Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 14-18 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with
Furukawa 1760

It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 raises a

substantial new question of patentability as to claims 14-18 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 38-40 of the replacement request, Furukawa '760 teaches a hand-

operated video game controller 10 that includes right and left-hand areas, with cross
key or button 12 on the left side and trigger buttons 19 and 20 on the right side (see Fig.

1). It is also agreed that Furukawa '760 teaches that the pressure sensitive switch
could be employed with other buttons, as desired locations (see page 9)~

These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but
not applied. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a reasonable examiner would

consider these teaching important in deciding whether or not the claims are patentable.

Accordingly, Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 is considered to raise a substantial new
question of patentability as to claims 14-18 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 20 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 17

Claims 20 and 21 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with

Brandenberg
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Brandenberg raises a

substantial new question of patentability as to claims 20 and 21 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 40-41 of the amended/substitute request, Brandenberg teaches
the use of convex actuator surfaces (17 in Brandenberg).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Brandenberg were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Brandenberg is
considered to raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 20 and 21 of

the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 20 and 21 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with
Furukawa '740
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '740 raises a

substantial new question of patentability as to claims 20 and 21 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 42-43 of the replacement request, Furukawa '740 teaches the use
of convex actuator surfaces (14b in Furukawa '740).

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 21 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 18

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Furukawa '740 were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Furukawa '740 is

considered to raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 20 and 21 of
the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 1, 19 and 20 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Furukawa 1760
taken with Furukawa 1740 and Switch Engineering Handbook
It is agreed that consideration of Furukawa '760 taken with Furukawa '740 and

Switch Engineering Handbook raises a substantial new question of patentabilty as to

claims 1, 19 and 20 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 43-45 of the
replacement request. Furukawa '760 teaches a variable sensor with a rigid board 5 that supports a dome cap the supports a sheet 32 that is positioned between the done cap

and the board. The dome cap 29 is structured to provide snap-through threshold tactile

feedback. It is also agreed that Furukawa '760 teaches electrically conductive material

33 carried by the dome cap. It is also agreed that Switch Engineering Handbook
teaches dome caps that are structured like Furukawa '760, that exhibit snap-through

threshold tactile feedback (see Fig. 11.6). It is also agreed that Furukawa '740 teaches
electrically conductive material 14b carried by the dome cap.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 22 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 19

These teachings of Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution of the
application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not

applied. The teachings of Switch Engineering Handbook and Furukawa '740 were not
present in the prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent.
Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider

these teaching important in deciding whether or not the claims are patentable.
Accordingly, Furukawa '760 taken with Switch Engineering Handbook and

Furukawa

'740 is considered to raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 1, 19

20 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 22-24, 27 and 28 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken

with Me/eard
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Meleard raises a substantial

new question of patentability as to claims 22-24, 27 and 28 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 45-47 of the replacement request, Meleard teaches a snap-through

switch where a non-conductive sheet 20 supports conductive material (contact surface

26) (see page 2, lines 70-81 and Fig. 3). It is also agreed that the conductive material
26 in Meleard contacts circuit traces 16 (see Fig. 3 and page 2, lines 125-130). These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Meleard were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 23 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 20

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Meleard is considered to
raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 22-24, 27 and 28 of the

Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 22, 25, 26 and 29-33 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer
taken with Me/eard and Furukawa 1760

It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Meleard and Furukawa '760

raises a substantial new question of patentabilty as to claims 22, 25, 26 and 29-33 of
Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 47-50 of

the replacement request, Furukawa

'760 teaches a hand-operated video game controller 10 that includes right and left-hand

areas, with cross key or button 12 on the left side and trigger buttons 19 and 20 on the

right side (see Fig. 1). It is also agreed that Furukawa '760 teaches that the pressure
sensitive switch could be employed with other buttons, as desired locations (see page
9). These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but

not applied. The teachings of Meleard were not present in the prosecution of the

application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 24 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 21

Meleard and Furukawa '760 is considered to raise a substantial new question of
patentability as to claims 22, 25, 26 and 29-33 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 31-33 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with
Me/eard, Furukawa '760 and Sakurai
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Meleard, Furukawa '760 and

Sakurai raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 31-33 of

Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 50-52 of the replacement request, it is agreed
that Sakurai teaches pressure sensitive variable conductance sensors in the right hand

side of the video game controller (see paragraphs 21 and 26). It is also agreed that
Sakurai teaches a four-way rocker in the left-hand area of the housing (see Fig. 1). It is
also agreed that Sakurai teaches up to five or more pressure sensitive variable conductance sensors in the right hand side of the video game controller (see

paragraphs 21,26 and 57).
These teachings of Kramer, Furukawa '760 and Sakurai were present in the
prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were

considered, but not applied. The teachings of Meleard were not present in the
prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there
is a substantial

likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching

important in deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer

taken with Meleard, Furukawa '760 and Sakurai is considered to raise a substantial
new question of patentability as to claims 31-33 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 25 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222
Art Unit: 3993

Page 22

Claim 39 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Padula
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Padula raises a substantial

new question of patentability as to claim 39 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages
52-53 of the replacement request, Padula teaches using a metal dome 102 in a
pressure transducer (see co!. 9, lines 12-16 and Fig. 12).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Padula were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Padula is considered to
raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 39 of the Armstrong '791

patent.

Claims 40-43,47-55,57-60, 62, 63, 65 and 66 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable

over Kramer taken with Furukawa '760
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 raises a

substantial new question of patentability as to claims 40-43,47-55,57-60,62,63,65

and 66 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 53-59 of the replacement request,
Furukawa '760 teaches a hand-operated video game controller 10 that includes right and left-hand areas, with cross key or button 12 on the left side and trigger buttons 19 and 20 on the right side, where the buttons are positioned for thumb depression (see

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 26 of 36
Page 23

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Fig. 1). It is also agreed that Furukawa '760 teaches that the pressure sensitive switch
could be employed with other buttons, as desired locations (see page 9). It is also
agreed that Furukawa '760 teaches controllng game characters in a video (see
paragraph 10 on page 7).

These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but
not applied. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a reasonable examiner would

consider these teaching important in deciding whether or not the claims are patentable.

Accordingly, Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 is considered to raise a substantial new

question of patentability as to claims 40-43,47-55,57-60,62,63,65 and 66 of the

Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 41-43, 47-55 and 57-60 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer

taken with Furukawa '760 and Sakurai
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 and Sakurai

raises a substantial new question of patentabilty as to claims 41-43,47-55 and 57-60 of
Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 59-64 of the replacement request, Furukawa
'760 teaches a hand-operated video game controller 10 that includes right and left-hand

areas, with cross key or button 12 on the left side and trigger buttons 19 and 20 on the

right side, where the buttons are positioned for thumb depression (see Fig. 1). It is also
agreed that Furukawa '760 teaches that the pressure sensitive switch could be '

employed with other buttons, as desired locations (see page 9). It is also agreed that

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 27 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 24

Furukawa '760 teaches controllng game characters in a video (see paragraph 10 on

page 7). It is also agreed that Sakurai teaches up to five or more pressure sensitive
variable conductance sensors in the right hand side of a video game controller and a

four way rocker in the left-hand area of the housing (see paragraphs 21,26 and 57). It
is also agreed that Sakurai teaches buttons positioned for thumb depression (see Fig.
1 ).

These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but

not applied. The teachings of Sakurai were not present in the prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with
Furukawa '760 and Sakurai is considered to raise a substantial new question of
patentabilty as to claims 41-43, 47-55 and 57-60 of

the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 62, 63, 65 and 66 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken

with Furukawa '760 and Yamaoka
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 and Yamaoka

raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claims 62, 63, 65 and 66 of

Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 64-66 of the replacement request, it is agreed
that Yamaoka teaches a video game machine that converts the intensity of the pressing

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 28 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 25

to the action of a game character, such as jumping higher (see paragraphs 9, 25, 28-30
and 35).

These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but

not applied. The teachings of Yamaoka were not present in the prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with
Furukawa '760 and Yamaoka is considered to raise a substantial new question of
patentability as to claims 62, 63, 65 and 66 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 43, 48, 50 and 53 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken

with Furukawa 1760 and Himoto
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '760 and Himoto

raises a substantial new question of patentabilty as to claims 43, 48, 50 and 53 of

Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages 66-68 of the replacement request, Himoto
teaches a means for active tactile feedback (see Figs. 1 and 15 and co!. 16, lines 38-

58).
These teachings of Kramer and Furukawa '760 were present in the prosecution

of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but

not applied. The teachings of Himoto were not present in the prosecution of the application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 29 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 26

likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with
Furukawa '760 and Himoto is considered to raise a substantial new question of
patentability as to claims 43, 48, 50 and 53 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claim 10 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with
Kawashima and Himoto
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Kawashima and Himoto

raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 10 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 68-69 of the replacement request, Himoto teaches a means for
active tactile feedback (see Figs. 1 and 15 and co!. 16, lines 38-58).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Kawashima and Himoto were not present in the prosecution of the

application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with
Kawashima and Himoto is considered to raise a substantial new question of
patentability as to claim 10 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 30 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 27

Claim 21 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Furukawa

1740 and Himoto
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Furukawa '740 and Himoto

raises a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 21 of Armstrong '791. As
pointed out in pages 69-71 of the replacement request, Himoto teaches a means for
active tactile feedback (see Figs. 1 and 15 and co!. 16, lines 38-58).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent' and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Furukawa '740 and Himoto were not present in the prosecution of the

application which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial
likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in

deciding whether or not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with
Furukawa '740 and Himoto is considered to raise a substantial new question of

patentabilty as to claim 21 of the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claims 27 and 29 of Armstrong 1791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with
Me/eard and Himoto
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Meleard and Himoto raises a

substantial new question of patentabilty as to claims 27 and 29 of Armstrong. '791. As
pointed out in pages 71-72 of the replacement request, Himoto teaches a means for
active tactile feedback (see Figs. 1 and 15 and col. 16, lines 38-58).

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 31 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 28

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Meleard and Himoto were not present in the prosecution of the application
which became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that

a reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Meleard and Himoto is

considered to raise a substantial new question of patentabilty as to claims 27 and 29 of

the Armstrong '791 patent.

Claim 35 of Armstrong '791 to be unpatentable over Kramer taken with Himoto
It is agreed that consideration of Kramer taken with Himoto raises a substantial

new question of patentability as to claim 35 of Armstrong '791. As pointed out in pages
72-73 of the replacement request, Himoto teaches a means for active tactile feedback
(see Figs. 1 and 15 and co!. 16, lines 38-58).

These teachings of Kramer were present in the prosecution of the application

which became the Armstrong '791 patent and were considered, but not applied. The
teachings of Himoto were not present in the prosecution of the application which
became the Armstrong '791 patent. Further, there is a substantial

likelihood that a

reasonable examiner would consider these teaching important in deciding whether or

not the claims are patentable. Accordingly, Kramer taken with Himoto is considered to
raise a substantial new question of patentability as to claim 35 of the Armstrong '791

patent.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 32 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 29

Summary of Substantial New Questions Adopted and Not Adopted
All of requester's substantial new questions have been adopted by the examiner.

Office Action on the Merits
An Office action on the merits wil follow in due course.

NOTICE RE PATENT OWNER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
Effective May 16, 2007, 37 CFR 1.33( c) has been revised to provide that:

The patent owner's correspondence address for all communications in an ex parte reexamination or an inter partes reexamination is designated as the correspondence address of the patent.
Revisions and Technical Corrections Affecting Requirements for Ex Parte 16, 2007)(Final Rule)

and Inter Partes Reexamination, 72 FR 18892 (April

The correspondence address for any pending reexamination proceeding not having the same correspondence address as that of the patent is, by way of this revision to 37 CFR 1.33(c), automaticallv chanaed to that of the patent file as of
the effective date.

This change is effective for any reexamination proceeding which is pending before the Office as of May 16, 2007, including the present reexamination proceedina, and to any reexamination proceeding which is filed after that date.

Parties are to take this change into account when filing papers, and direct communications accordingly.
In the event the patent owner's correspondence address listed in the papers (record) for the present proceeding is different from the correspondence address of the patent, it is strongly encouraged that the patent owner affirmatively file a Notification of Change of Correspondence Address in the reexamination proceeding and/or the patent (depending on which address patent owner desires), to conform the address of the proceeding with that of the patent and to clarify the record as to which address should be used for

correspondence.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 33 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 30

Telephone Numbers for reexamination inquiries:

Central Reexam Unit (CRU) [phone]
Reexamination Facsimile Transmission No. [phone]

Reexamination and Amendment Practice [phone]

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 34 of 36

Application/Control Number: 95/000,222 Art Unit: 3993

Page 31

Conclusion
Please mail

any communications to:

Attn: Mail Stop "Ex Parte Reexam" Central Reexamination Unit Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Please FAX any communications to:
[phone] Central Reexamination Unit

Please hand-deliver any communications to:

Customer Service Window Attn: Central Reexamination Unit Randolph Building, Lobby Level 401 Dulaney Street

Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number [phone].

Signed:
/Beverly M. Flanagan/
Beverly M. Flanagan

CRU Examiner
GAU 3993

[phone]

Conferee: /Jeffrey R. Jastrzab/.
Jeffrey R. Jastrzab

Conferee CR,~iner.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 35 of 36

EXPRES MAIL LABEL NO,: EV 669613273 US DATE OF DEPOSIT: May 10, 2007

ATIORNEV REFERENCE NO 6620-76454-08 REEXAM CONTOL NO: 9S/00J222

Attorney Docket Number

INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REEXAMINATION PRIOR ART

Patent Number Issued Date Firt Named Inventor

6620-76454-08 6,344,791
Februar 5, 2002

Bra A. Arstrng

u.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
Copies of

U.S. Patent documents do not need to be provided, unless requested by the Patent and Traemark Offce. For patents, provide the patent number and the issue date. For published U.S. applications, provide the publication number and the publication date. For unpublished peding
patent aDDlications. Drovide the aDDlication number and the mine date.

Examiner's

Cite No.

Initials.

(optional)

Number
RE 34,095
3,643,04 i

Publication Date
October 13, 1992
Febru 15, 1972

Name of Applicant or Patentee
Padula

r;~
1.

Jackson
Clancy

4,604,509
5,164,697

August 5, 1986

November 17, 1992
July 27, 1993

Kramer

/
Examiner's

5,231,386

Brandenburg

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Cite No.

Initials.

(optional)

Country
Great Britan
Great Britain
Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan

Number
1 412298

Publication Date
November 5, 1975
October 9, 1985

Name of Applicant or Patentee
Knox Meleard
Kaneko Matsumoto

1JY
f1

2 156588
861-100844
861- 1 03836

June 27,1986
July 2, 1986
June 17, 1991

H3-61304
HS-304007

Kawashima
Tanami

November 16, 1993
November 26, 1993
June 3, 1994

H5-87760
H06-154422

Furkawa
Sakurai

Japan

H6-56740

August 5, 1994

Furawa

EXAMINER SIGNATURE:

.--

ß,

Çd~JA-bAtJ

DATE CONSIDERED:

7/rj/o7

· Examiner: Initial if reference considered, whether or not in confonnance with MPEP 609. Draw line though cite if not this fonn with next communication to applicant. in confonnance and not considered. Include copy of
Information Disclosure Statement (1449) Page 1 of2

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC
..

Document 147

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 36 of 36

EXPRESS MAIL LAEL NO.: EV 669613273 US
DATE OF DEPOSIT: May 10,2007

A TlRNEY REFERENCE NO 6620-76454-08 REEXAM CONTOL NO: 95/000,222

Attorney Docket Number

INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REEXAMINATION PRIOR ART

Patent Number
Issued Date

6620-76454-08 6,344,791
Februar 5, 2002

First Named Inventor

Brad A. Arstrong

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Examiner's Cite No.
Initials. (optional)

Country
Japan
Europe

Number
H7-112073

Publication Date
May 2, 1995

Name of

A licant or Patentee
Yamaoka
Himoto

EP 0835676 Al April is, 1998
OTHER DOCUMNTS

Cite

No.

(optional)

Mason, Switch Engineering Handbook (McGraw-Hil, Inc. 1993) (excerpts, ch. 1,6,8-11)

EXAMINER

SIGNATUR:
· Examiner: Initial if

ß

Fi/\JJL(t,A rr

DATE CONSIDERED:

7lY-!o1

reference considered, whether or not in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line thrugh cite ifnot

in conformance and not considered. Include copy ofthis form with next communication to applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement (1449) Page 2 of2