Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 94

MICROSOFT'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PATENTS ASSERTED AGAINST BOTH MICROSOFT AND NINTENDO filed by Microsoft Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14)(Jakubek, Joseph)

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 94 Att. 11

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT 11

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 2 of 5

APPLICATION NO.

FILING DATE

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.

DATE MAILED:

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks

(Rev. 2 / 9 5 )
U S. G.P.O.

1- File Copy
,

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 3 of 5

Application No.

Interview Summary

081677,378

ARMSTRONG, BRAD A.

Examiner

Art Unit
2779

Jeffery A Brier

All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):
( 1)

A

(2) Brad

Date of Interview: 31 Type: Telephonic Video Conference Personal [copy given to: applicant Yes applicant's representative] No.

Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: If Yes, brief description: discussed: Identification of prior art discussed: Agreement with respect to the claims

and U.S.

4,949,080.

was reached.

was not reached.

Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was reached, or any other comments: See . (A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims allowable, if available, must be attached. Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims allowable is available, a summary thereof must be attached.) It is not necessary for applicant to provide a separate record of the substance of the checked). box is

Unless the paragraph above has been checked, THE FORMAL REPLY TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST INCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW. (See MPEP Section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, APPLICANT IS GIVEN ONE MONTH FROM THIS INTERVIEW DATE TO FILE A STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW. See Summary of Record of Interview requirements on reverse side or on attached sheet.

Examiner Note: You must s i g n this form unless it is an action. Attachment to a signed
and
Office

03- 98)

Interview Summary

Paper No. 14.

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 4 of 5

of Record of Interview Requireme.
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP),Section 713.04, Substanceof Interview Must be Made o f Record A complete statement as to the substance of any face-to-face,video conference, or telephone interview with regard t o an application must be made of record in the whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview.

Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1.133 Interviews Paragraph (b) In instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does remove the necessity for reply to action as specified
37 CFR $1.2 Business to be transacted in writing. A l l business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusivelyon the written record in the Office. No attention alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.

and be paid

The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record i n the Office if that record itself incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews. It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, examiner indicates he or she will do so. It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies which bear directly on the question of patentability. Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record required. The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion of the file, and listed on the "Contents" section of the file wrapper. In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) the conclusion of the interview. In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview, the copy is mailed t o the applicant's correspondence address either with prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication. The Form provides for recordation of the following information: - Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number) - Name of applicant - Name of examiner - Date of interview - Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal) - Name of (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.) - An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted - A n identification of the specific prior art discussed - An indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement as to allowability i s tentative and does not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary. - The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)
It desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of h i s or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case unless both applicant and examiner agree that the examiner will record same. Where the examiner agrees to record the substance of the interview, or when it adequately recorded on the Form or i n an attachment to the Form, the examiner should check the appropriate box at the bottom of the which informs the applicant that the submission of a separate record of the substance of the interview as a supplement to the Form is not required. It should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete a n d proper recordation of the interview unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the substance of the interview.

A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items: 1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted, 2) an identification of the claims discussed, 3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed, 4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner, 5 ) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner, (The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient i f the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments made to the examiner can be understood i n the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.) 6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and 7) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by the examiner. Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview. If the record is not complete and accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record. Examiner t o Check f o r A c c u r a c y If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiner's version of the statement attributed to him or her. If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should place the indication, "Interview Record O K on the paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.

2

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 5 of 5

uation Sheet (PTO-4 13 )

Application No. 081677,378

Continuation of Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an is claiming a standard computer agreement was reached, or any other comments: This Examiner stated that claim keyboard with a 6DOF joystick. The examiner stated that a 6DOFjoystick was well known in view of Hoyt and that Yoshida shows that it is obvious to place it on a keyboard. U.S. Patent 4,949,080 was made known to applicant to better show a computer keyboard with a joystick. (applicant was not given the reference nor will it be supplied with this interview summary form). Applicant felt that there is no motivation to connect a 6DOF joystick onto a computer keyboard. The examiner stated that Yoshida suggests attaching a known 6DOF joystick onto a keyboard in view of joystick 17 on the game pad. Applicant disagreed. Applicant wished to know his alternatives. Applicant was advised that he could appeal the case or amend the claims. Applicant stated that he did not wish to appeal. The examiner stated that Hoyt and Yoshida do not teach the integrated membrane shown in applicants figure 18 where the membrane for the alpha-numeric keys and the 6DOF joystick are the same membrane. The examiner also stated that as with the integrated membrane shown in applicants figure 18) and that if the the claims need to be narrowing is such that new searching is required then the amendment will not be considered after Final. Applicant was directed to the PTO which has information and forms for filing a CPA..

3