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. 12

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT 12

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 2 of 9

Application No.

Notice of Allowability

Examiner Michael J. Moyer

ARMSTRONG, BRAD A Art Unit 2675

The of this communication appears on the cover sheet the being allowable, PROSECUTIONON THE MERITS I (OR REMAINS) CLOSED in this application. S included herewith (or previously mailed), a Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) or other appropriate communication will be mailed in due course. THIS NOTICE OF I NOT A GRANT OF S RIGHTS. This application is subject to withdrawal from issue at the initiative of the Office or upon petition by the applicant. See 37 CFR 1.313 and MPEP 1308.

1.

2. 3. 4.

This communication is responsive to 25 October 2002. The allowed 39-77. now renumbered The drawingsfiled on accepted b y the Examiner. Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. or (f). All Some' None of the: 1. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received. 2. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received inApplication No. Copies of the certified copies of the priority have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule Certified copies not received: Acknowledgment is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 11 (to a provisional application). (a) The translation of the foreign language provisional application has been received. Acknowledgment is made of a claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 and/or 121.
3.

5.
6.

Applicant has THREE MONTHS FROMTHE "MAILING DATE" of this communication to file a reply complying with the requirements noted below. failure to timely comply will result in ABANDONMENT of this application. THIS THREE-MONTH PERIOD IS NOT EXTENDABLE

7.

A SUBSTITUTE OATH OR DECLARATION must be submitted. Note the attached EXAMINERS AMENDMENT or NOTICE OF INFORMAL PATENT APPLICATION (PTO-152) which gives why the oath or declaration is deficient. CORRECTED DRAWINGS must be submitted. (a) including changes required by the Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review ( PTO-948) attached 1) hereto or 2) to Paper No. (b) (c) including changes required by the proposed drawing correctionfiled which has been approved by the Examiner. including changes required by the attached Examiner's Amendment Comment or in the Office action of Paper No.
Indicia such as the application number (see 37 CFR should be written on the drawings in the top margin (not the back) sheet. The drawings should be a separate paper with a transmittal letter addressed to the

DEPOSIT OF

INFORMATION about the deposit of BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL must be submitted. Note the

attached Examiner's comment regarding REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEPOSIT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL.

Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) Notice of Draftperson's Patent Drawing Review Statements Paper No. Examiner's Comment Regarding of Biological Material

Notice of Informal Patent Application Interview Summary Paper Examiner's Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Other .

PATENT
,
U

Paten! and

PTO-37 (Rev. 04-01)

Notice of Allowability

of Paper No. 8

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 3 of 9

Number: 09/715,532
Art Unit: 2675
DETAILED ACTION

Page 2

Allowable Subject Matter
1.

Claims 39-77 are allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art taken

either singular or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 102 or 103 would be

proper. In particular no reference could be used singular or in combination that taught or disclosed an instance in which, (in a general or broad sense) a game controller that is used for a television based game, that has the capability of using up to but doesn't have to, six degrees of freedom or all sensors relating to the 6DOF contained on one circuit sheet, individuals

buttons that can be pivotal or not and the aspect of tactile feedback. In order to show what is novel over the references a more detailed explanation will now be presented regarding the claims, individually.

As pertaining to claims 3 9 4 0 a n d 41

the first element containing four

unidirectional sensors used for linear movement, the second and third elements containing the first two and second two rotary potentiometers used for rotational movement, the first independent button, and the independent pivotal second and third button structures and tactile feedback. Furthermore, all the sensors relating to the linear and rotational movements are connected to one sheet circuit sheet or membrane sheet, This sheet especially makes this novel over the references because it allows the user to replace the entire sheet when one or all

of the sensors malfunction. This sheet is electrically printed thus the abundance of individual
wires is reduced making the controller less cumbersome and less bulky when replacing the sheet and also during manufacturing. In addition the controller can be made smaller because of less parts. Furthermore, the sensors also play a part into making the sheet small and easy

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 4 of 9

Number:
Art Unit: 2675

15,532

Page 3

to manufacture because they are small and flat. With regardsto the feedback, when

movement results in "contact" the ball gently vibrates. The mind naturally interprets this vibration as normal tactile feedback, thus this invention offers a rich natural interaction with the electronicenvironment. The controller allows the advantage that the handle can vibrate for tactile feedback without producing any unwanted signals, which might otherwise be caused by the vibration of the tactile feedback falsely triggering sensors. The sensor isolation of this invention allows tolerance that forgives the
of human-hand input. Furthermore,

the dependent claims include the tactile feedback having a motor and offset weight. As pertaining to claim 43, see claims 39 and 40 for explanation, the only differenceis that this embodiment does not include the tactile feedback.
As pertaining to claims 4 4 4 6 , the first element containing four unidirectionalsensors

used for linear movement, the second and third elements containing the first two and second

two rotary potentiometers used for rotational movement, the first independent button, and the
independent second are pressure-sensitiveand tactile feedback. Instead of being a regular button sensor, now the button sensors are pressure-sensitive, when is conveying the same thing just using a different component. The dependent claims contain the tactile feedback containing a motor and offset weight and a third button sensor. The same reasons are set forth

to why they are novel in claims 39 and 40.
As pertaining to c l a i m 47-49, see claim 44-46 for explanation, the only difference is

that the first two and second two rotary potentiometers are expanded to read a first rotary potentiometer, a second rotary potentiometer, a third rotary potentiometer, and a forth rotary potentiometer. The dependent claims contain a third button sensor and tactile feedback containing a motor and offset weight. The same reasons are set forth to claims 39 and 40. they are novel in

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 5 of 9

Number: 09/715,532
Art Unit: 2675
As pertaining to claims

Page 4

see claims 39 and 40 for explanation. Furthermore, the

tactile feedback contains a motor and offset weight, which is a form of feedback for this controller.
As pertaining t o claims 52 a n d 55,see claim 47 for explanation. The other differences

with this embodiment are: instead of rotary potentiometers, bi-directional proportional sensors are used,which is a different type of sensor but has the same effect of conveying the rotational movement and it does not incorporate the tactile feedback. With regards to claim 55,it is the same as claim 52, however it is explained in more detail.
As pertaining t o claim 53, see claims

and 52 for explanation. The obvious

difference is that instead of rotary potentiometers being used bi-directionalsensors are used and a motor and offset weight are used for tactile feedback.

As pertaining t o claim 54, the embodiment changes in which now there are two sheets
for each set of sensors. There is a single sheet on one plane in which the first element structure containingfour unidirectionalsensors are located and then on a second plane a second sheet in which the second and third element structures on situated in which the a first and second two bidirectional proportional sensors are used, an independent first and second button sensor are used and there is also tactile feedback. The same reasons as set forth in claims 39-40 and 52, however with the two planar design it allows the origin of all axes to remain within the handle and yet much of the mechanical resolving structure is moved down into the remaining part of the controller where space is plentiful, thus the handle can be made smaller and in fact the whole controller can be made smaller.
As pertaining t o claims 57-62, there is a

that rotates a platform on two

mutually perpendicular axes, the rotation is provided by four unidirectional sensors and further there is a vibrator for tactile feedback, a plurality of independent buttons, and further there is a

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 6 of 9

Number:09/715,532
Art Unit: 2675

Page 5

second element movable on two perpendicular axes and the sensors being of the bi-directional type and furthermore the bi-directional sensors are rotary potentiometers. The same reasons for novelty can be found in claims As pertaining to claims and 54. they are similar to claims 57-62, but further includes a

third element movable on two mutually perpendicular axes and the sensors are of the bidirectional type and there is a tactile feedback means that contains a motor and offset weight. All of the sensors are contained on one sheet that is flexible membrane. Furthermore, the bidirectional sensors can be rotary potentiometers or optical encoders. The same reasons for novelty can be found in claims and are mainly the same as claims 63-69 and they

As pertaining to claim

encompass the same explanation as above.

As pertaining to claims 76-77, these claims are similar to claims 39-40 and 44 except
that there are only an independent first and second button structures and there is a tactile feedback. See claims 39-40 and 44 for explanation. With regards to the references, there are many referencesthat teach six degrees of freedom or 6DOF and most of them are different in terms of input device, they are Couch et al., US 5,749,577 (joystick); Hirabayashi, US 5,329,276 (hand input device); Rosenberg, US
5,767,839 (human interface system); Thomas, Jr. US 5,128,671 (joystick); 5,142,931 (hand controller);

US

US 4,469,330 (joystick);

et al., US 4,962,448 (hand

controller); Fischer, US 5,271,290. Even though these referencesteach six degrees of freedom, none of them teach: a) the use of four unidirectional sensors, and eight bi-directional sensors being either rotary potentiometers or optical encoders, b) all the sensors being containedon one sheet further comprising a flexible membrane and circuit board, or c) one sheet on a first plane on a platform containing the four unidirectional sensors and the remaining

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 7 of 9

Number:09/775,532
Art Unit: 2675

Page 6

eight sensors contained on a second sheet on a second plane. Some of the reference, Couch; Hirabayashi; Thomas, Jr.; and teach some type use of independent buttons,

however none of them teach that the buttons can be pivotal and/or are connected to the one sheet that is a flexible membrane and circuit board. Other references that can teach independent buttons and have rotatable means, trackball, dial, are Chandler, US 4,246,452;

and Wislocki, US 4,933,670. However, these two references do not teach six degrees of freedom and/or the buttons being pivotal and/or are connected to the one sheet that is a flexible membraneand circuit board. Some of the previous mentioned references teach a tactile feedback operation, Rosenberg; Fischer; et and Houston, US 5,168,221. However,

none of these references teach the aspect of independent buttons that can be pivotal or not and/or are connected to the one sheet that is a flexible membrane and circuit board. Another aspect that none of these references taught was the replacing the sheet when one or all of the sensors malfunction. None of these references could be could be used singular or in combination that taught or disclosed the novel limitations mentioned above. An explanation was written that includedthe outline of all the claims to show what was novel, and then an explanation was written to show that no references taught or existed that were able to reject the claimed matter. However as one can see all the claims are related to each other in one form or another. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 8 of 9

Applica rol Number: Art Unit: 2675

15,532

Page 7

Conclusion 2.
In the process of examining this case. The examiner noticed that a terminal disclaimer

was filed and entered on 8 August 2001 for the original claimed subject matter. The applicant filed a pre-amendmentB on 15 July 2002, amending the claimed subject matter so that the terminal disclaimer did not read on those claims. The applicant requested that the terminal disclaimer be removed. However, since the terminal disclaimer had already been entered, the applicant did not provide the correct procedure to have the terminal disclaimer removed. The applicant was notified by Patent Office and the examiner that if he wanted to have the terminal disclaimer removed he would have to file a petition. The applicant wanted to wait until after an action had been made to decide what he was going to do. After further reviewing the case, the examiner believes that a terminal disclaimer is not needed, since the claims do not read on any previous patented claimed subject matter. Any inquiry this communication or earlier communications from the examiner

should be directed to Michael J. Moyer whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Saras, can be reached at [phone]. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231

or faxed to: [phone] (for Technology Center 2600 only)
responses should be brought to Crystal Park 2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA,
Sixth Floor (Receptionist).

Case 9:06-cv-00158-RHC

Document 94

Filed 05/21/2007

Page 9 of 9

Number: 09/715,532

Page 8

Art Unit: 2675
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose
telephone number is (703) 3064377.

Michael J. Moyer Examiner Art Unit 2675

MJM December 16,2002

SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER TECHNOLOGY CENTER