Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al
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. 2
Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10
Assistant Commissioner of Patents D. C. 20231 Re: Patent Application of
Brad A. Armstrong Filed:
Serial No.: Title:
6 DOF GRAPHIC CONTROLLERS WITH SHEET CONNECTED SENSORS
Brad A. Armstrong P.O. Box 1419 Paradise, CA 95967 Art Unit:
Patent Examiner: Brier, J.
IN RESPONSE TO THE OUTSTANDING OFFICE ACTION OF
Sir: REMARKS This responsive to the Office paper # 10, regarding the above specified application wherein claims 1-15 and 19-22 are pending and rejected. attached. A certificate of Express mailing A Petition for Extension of Time under 37 CFR 1.136 and the fee for one additional month hereto attached. The consideration'ofthis response, and the reexamination of the application and pending claims in view of this response requested. The entire Detailed Action of the carefully read, including points 1-15, and 17. has been
Point 1 is noted. Under amendments presented below claims 1-15 will be cancelled, therefore there should be no need to further address the patentability of claims 1-15. This is not to be considered
Page 3 of 10
an admission by applicant that claims 1-15 are not patentable. Claims 19-22 remain pending and are firmly believed patentable. In reference to Points 2-14 of the Office Action. Again, claims 1-15 will be cancelled below under amendments. It is point 2 that the original 1.131 affidavit first stated noted by the PTO as being incorrect has now been decided by the PTO to be correct, thank you. It is also noted that the examiner believes the declaration is ineffective for claims 6-8, 10-12, and 19-22. Please see drawing figure 3 of my patent 5,565,891 and compare it to drawing figure 12 of the instant application wherein one can see that only a stick (rod or joystick) needs to be attached to the ball of a 6 axis trackball to have a 6 axis joystick, thus applicant believe it unreasonable to conclude that applicant did not have conception or even reduction to practice of the six axis joystick prior to the effective date of Hoyt, particularly view that my patent 5,565,891 a continuationin-part of a patent teaching a 6 axis joystick which can specifically use Hall effect sensors. However, my invention of claims 19-22 not the claimed the 4-3-98 pages invention of Hoyt, and the evidence provided 2-4 declaration included the U . S . Patent 5,565,891 (my trackball patent a copy provided herewith), this evidence intended to antedate the effective date of the Hoyt reference the specific information detailed thereabout, and it was assumed and now requested that my U.S. Patent 5,589,828 filed Mar. 5, 1992 (a copy provided herewith) would be considered as a portion of the submitted evidence since my patent 5,565,891 is a in-part of my patent 5,589,828 filed in 1992 and describes such on the front page thereof. My patent 5,589,828 teaches but does not specifically claim a six axis joystick controller using Hall effect sensors (like the much later Hoyt disclosure). My patent 5,565,891 makes the 35 USC 120 claim to my patent 5,589,828 for
Page 4 of 10
the purpose of overcoming prior art. On the front page of my Patent 5,565,891 is a statement making reference that said patent is a continuation-in-part of my U . S . patent 5,589,828. Applicant believes the PTO may have errored the issuance of the Hoyt disclosure. My U . S . Patent 5,589,828 was filed long before Hoyt and issued in time to become publically available as prior art useful against the Hoyt disclosure, and yet my U . S . patent 5,589,828 which clearly describes a six axis Hall effect sensors is not even listed as a prior art document on the atent, and applicant believes it surely should have been considered the Hoyt case. In my U . S . Patent 5,589,828 a copy described as a provided herewith, please see page 1 wherein it 6 degree of freedom controller, and shown in the front page please see drawing as a joystick. Also in my same patent column 3 lines 35-42 wherein is made clear many different types of sensors can be used with my joystick because of the joystick structuring, and then please see column 6 where Hall effect, magnetic, proximity sensor, etc. are all listed as examples of sensors used or all usable on my joystick, and then see column 13 lines 34 through about line 40 where I describe precisely where to buy Hall effect sensors which can be used in any of the sensor locations shown in the drawing figures. Please read my entire patent 5,589,828 and then please read my entire a continuation-in-part of pat. '828, patent 5,565,891 which and then please reconsider whether I reduced to practice my invention this country prior to the effective date of the Hoyt reference. In addition to my earlier proper swear behind, I now further swear behind Hoyt under 37 CFR 1.131 based on my U . S . Patent 5,589,828 as this patent clearly antedates the Hoyt patent 5,687,080. I request the Hoyt disclosure be set aside and not applied as a prior art reference to claims 19-22, and all statements herein are true or believed to be true. Thank you.
Page 5 of 10
4 Would the Examiner please note MPEP 715.07 states: purpose of filing a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit is not to demonstrate prior invention, per se, but merely to antedate the effective date of a reference. See In re Moore, 58 CCPA 1340, 444 572, 170 USPQ 260 (1971). Although the test for parallels that for sufficiency of an affidavit under Rule determining priority of invention in an interference under 35 it does not necessarily follow that Rule 131 U.S.C. practice controlled by interference law. To the contrary, parallel to interference practice found Rule should be recognized as one of convenience rather than Id. at 1353, 444 at 580, 170 USPQ at 267. Thus, and 'reduction to which must be established under the rule need not be the same as what required in the 'interference, sense of those Id.; 505 713, 718-19, 184 USPQ 29, 33 accord, In re (CCPA 1974).
As far as diligence goes, the current application was filed during the pendency of my prior applications 5,565,891, and 5,589,828, and applicant is a pro se applicant and assures the Examiner there was never a period when applicant was not working on or toward the instant invention.
Applicant believes his burden of showing that Hoyt should be set aside and not used against claims 19-22 has clearly been met, and respectfully requested Hoyt be set aside. It is view of this respectfully requested claims 19-22 be reexamined and previous responses of applicants and found allowable over the prior art. While the Hoyt disclosure of U.S. Patent 5,687,080 clearly should have been and should now be set aside, Hoyt in combination
Page 6 of 10
with Yoshida further simply does not suggest a combination of that which claimed in claims 19-22 which is: a computer keyboard housing supporting at least forty alpha-numeric keys so as to allow writing natural language English or other such letters, for example creating documents languages, and to also process math using a number pad and use a space bar, etc, plus an incorporated joystick-type input member capable of being operated in six degrees of freedom by a human hand so as to allow the controller device user to manipulate 3 D graphics on the display through the use of the 6 DOF joystick. Simply, such as claimed in claims 19-22 is not suggested by a combination of Hoyt and Yoshida, f o r many reasons, including but not limited to Hoyt never once mentions mounting his hall effect joystick in a keyboard, and Yoshida is not interested in a writing keyboard. Allowance of claims 19-22 is respectfully requested. AMENDMENTS Please amend the title of the invention throughout the application to read --IMAGE CONTROLLERS AND SENSORS--
Please insert the following new claims 23-37 into the claims section of the application, examine the claims view of the instant application and prior art of record, and please find them allowable over the prior art of record.
controller, comprising: erable by a human user, said sensor
Page 7 of 10
said imagery, said means at least for controlling said imagery, activated and non-activated means at least capable of processing magery, proportional sig said sensor, sa
ure applied to element for ressure applied er includes
deriving at leas to said sensor, a tactile d
24. A hand-oper which said press sandwiched between at least tw membrane sheets captured
claim 23 in element is
A hand-oper which said image controller is
hand-oper at least on user, said means for c capable of processing
imagery, said sw said sensor, and a proportional signal for controlling proportional sig imagery, said
Page 8 of 10
which said sen
ding t o claim 28 vated and creating a
t a c t i l e feedback u p o n
which said image controller is
at least one sensor operable
a human user, said sensor
of said s e n s o r .
Page 9 of 10
which said sen
is operated by a finger activated button. image controller according to claim 3 3
regulating element from pressure appl
wherein said pressure-se sandwiched between
ive electrically regulating element
membrane sheets is captured a package member having
which said image controller is a
REMARKS No new matter has been added with the inclusion of new
the originally filed specification, and claims 23-26 are believe allowable over the prior art of record, therefore allowance of respectfully requested. Thank you. the claims I hereby declare and swear that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued
37, the claim wording and concepts are fully supported
Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF EXPRESS HAILING Assistant Commissioner for Patents Washington, D. C. 20231
I hereby certify that this correspondence being deposited with the United States Postal Service as EXPRESS MAIL article with sufficient postage paid an envelope addressed to: Assistant Commissioner of Patents, Washington, D. C. 20231, on this
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?