Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 267

NOTICE by Polestar Capital Associates, LLC, Norseman Group, LLC re 173 Memorandum in Support, of Submission of Exhibit 28 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 28)(Franco, Craig)

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 267 Att. 1

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 267-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 1 of 4

Exhibit 28
Interview Summary in Which Examiner Indicates PTO Policy to Reject All Applications

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 267-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 2 of 4

PATENT

A T T O R N E Y D O C K E T No.

114595-02

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S P A T E N T AND T R A D E M A R K O F F I C E Serial No.: 09/611,548 Confirmation No.: 6763 Applicant: Douglas G. Lowenstein, e t al. Title: FINANCING O F T E N A N T IMPROVEMENTS Filed: July 7 , 2 0 0 0 A r t Unit: 3692 Examiner: S. Chencinski Atty. D o c k e t : C u s t o m e r No. 114595-02 38492

SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS

M a i l Stop A m e n d m e n t C o m m i s s i o n e r for P a t e n t s P.O. B o x 1 4 5 0 Alexandria, V A 2 2 3 1 3 - 1 4 5 0

B A C K G R O U N D C O N T E X T - P R O S E C U T I O N H I S T O R Y T O D E C E M B E R 2005 1. Three separate claim limitations o f claim 56 (SPE "owns the lease," S P E is

" o w n e d b y the landlord," debt is "non-recourse with respect to the asset") were effectively i g n o r e d i n five c o n s e c u t i v e O f f i c e p a p e r s . 2. A previous examiner, in Office papers o f J a n u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , J a n u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , and

N o v e m b e r 22, 2 0 0 4 , r a i s e d o v e r s i x t y a s s e r t i o n s o f O f f i c i a l N o t i c e , i n c l u d i n g t h r e e a s s e r t i o n s against three entire paragraphs o f claim 56. Applicant timely and specifically traversed u n d e r 37 C.P.R. § 1.104(d)(2). See A p p l i c a n t ' s papers o f 6 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 2 , 3 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 3 and 4/30/2004. In an interview o f April 14, 2003, the examiner conceded that he h a d no basis whatsoever to believe that the Officially Noticed " f a c t s " were "capable o f instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well k n o w n . "
I c e r t i f y t h a t this c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , a l o n g with a n y d o c u m e n t s referred to therein, is b e i n g deposited with the United States Postal Service o n F e b r u a r y 26, 2007 as F i r s t Class M a i l in an e n v e l o p e w i t h sufficient p o s t a g e a d d r e s s e d to M a i l S t o p A m e n d m e n t , C o m m i s s i o n e r for P a t e n t s , P . O . B o x 1 4 5 0 , Alexandria, V A 22313-1450.

S u m m a r y o f Interviews T h i s p a p e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 26, 2 0 0 7

1

114595-02

S I N 09/611,548

P000795

Application Serial No. 09/611,548 Attorney Docket No. 114595-02 Summary of Interviews - December 2005 to January 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 267-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 3 of 4

3.

A n e w e x a m i n e r was a p p o i n t e d . T h e f i r s t t w o p a p e r s b y t h e n e w e x a m i n e r

i g n o r e d t h e s a m e c l a i m l a n g u a g e i n f o u r t h a n d fifth p a p e r s . F o r e x a m p l e , i n the e x a m i n e r ' s
p a p e r s o f 1 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 5 : t h r e e e n t i r e p a r a g r a p h s o f c l a i m 56 w e r e t o t a l l y o m i t t e d f r o m consideration - there is neither comparison to any reference nor any explanation for disregarding the claim language. Thus, as o f D e c e m b e r 2005, the Office h a d failed to consider the language o f claim 56 o n four occasions, and h a d failed to " a n s w e r all material traversed" o n three occasIOns. S U M M A R Y O F I N T E R V I E W O F D E C E M B E R 19, 2005 4. A telephonic interview was h e l d December 19, 2005 among the undersigned

attorney, E x a m i n e r Chencinski as assistant examiner, and Examiner Frantzy Poinvil as primary examiner. E x a m i n e r Po in vii provided the first explanation in the entire prosecution history for any reason to disregard language o f claim 56:
E x a m i n e r P o i n v i l : I f I w e r e e x a m i n i n g this c l a i m , I w o u l d n o t g i v e w e i g h t to [ m e t h o d step]. I t ' s f u n c t i o n a l l a n g u a g e . This Attorney: This is a m e t h o d claim. T h e r e ' s never b e e n a rule that "functional" l a n g u a g e c a n be d i s r e g a r d e d i n a m e t h o d claim. E v e n the r u l e a b o u t f u n c t i o n a l l a n g u a g e i n apparatus claims was overruled 20 years ago. L e t ' s look t h a t u p in the M P E P . . . E x a m i n e r : W e l l , i t ' s n o t e n t i t l e d to weight. I t ' s n o n - f u n c t i o n a l l a n g u a g e .

E x a m i n e r P o i n v i i c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e s a m e c l a i m l a n g u a g e i n two d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s i t e statements less than two minutes apart. 1 E x a m i n e r Po in vii made no attempt to reconcile his two d i a m e t r i c all y - o p p o s i t e s t a t e m e n t s . 5. The interview lasted about an hour. During this time, E x a m i n e r Po in vii stated

between four and six reasons for denying weight to certain c l a i m language. I n each case, this attorney asked E x a m i n e r Po in vii to identify where his proposed reason was stated in the M P E P o r in any other written document. In each case, E x a m i n e r Poinvil was forced to admit that his view o f the law h a d no basis in any written document.

The transcript o f the conversation is believed to b e a near-verbatim r e p o r t o f Examiner P o i n v i l ' s literal words - this s u m m a r y is b e i n g prepared f r o m notes that were p r e p a r e d within a d a y o f the interview.

S u m m a r y o f Interviews T h i s p a p e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 26, 2 0 0 7

2

114595-02

SIN 0 9 / 6 1 1 , 5 4 8

P000796

Application Serial No. 09/611,548 Attorney Docket No. 114595-02 Summary o f Interviews - December 2005 to January 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 267-2

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 4 of 4

36.

T h i s a t t o r n e y also p r o v i d e d a c o v e r e m a i l d i s c u s s i n g s e v e r a l r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s o f

the B o a r d o f P a t e n t A p p e a l s a n d I n t e r f e r e n c e s , a n d the a n a l o g i e s b e t w e e n t h o s e cases a n d the c l a i m s o f this a p p l i c a t i o n . 37. This attorney asked for a p r o m p t response, so that i f no agreement was reached, a

p r o p e r i n t e r v i e w s u m m a r y c o u l d b e p r e p a r e d . T h i s r e q u e s t was m a d e i n w r i t i n g b y e m a i l . 38. T h e promised p r o m p t call to continue the interview was never received.

INTERVIEW OF JANUARY 12, 2007
39.

In a b r i e f telephone call o n o r about January 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , E x a m i n e r Chencinski

a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e O f f i c e ' s p a p e r o f 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 7 was i n c o m p l e t e , a n d t h a t f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f his p o s i t i o n w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d b e f o r e p r o s e c u t i o n c o u l d m e a n i n g f u l l y a d v a n c e . E x a m i n e r Chencinski indicated that he believed that the Office was not inclined to allow the claims proposed o n D e c e m b e r 13, 2006 - that is, the examiners h a d entirely r e n e g e d o n their o w n p r o p o s e d c l a i m l a n g u a g e was " u s e f u l c o n c r e t e a n d t a n g i b l e , " a n d h a d d i s a v o w e d t h e p r o p o s a l that they themselves h a d p u t forward to overcome any § 101 problem. 40. E x a m i n e r C h e n c i n s k i s t a t e d t h a t E x a m i n e r P o i n v i l does n o t k n o w the l a w o f

§ 101, a n d d o e s n o t r e l y o n a n y w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t s t a t i n g a n y l e g a l s t a n d a r d f o r " a b s t r a c t . "

E x a m i n e r C h e n c i n s k i e x p l a i n e d t h a t E x a m i n e r P o i n v i l relies o n his p e r s o n a l v i e w i n s t e a d o f a n y p u b l i s h e d statement. 41. E x a m i n e r C h e n c i n s k i i n d i c a t e d t h a t his a r t u n i t o r T e c h n o l o g y C e n t e r w e r e

d e l i b e r a t e l y stalling a l l o w a n c e o f applications. Respectfully submitted,

D a t e d : F e b r u a r y 26, 2 0 0 7

By:

IDavid E. B o u n d y l D a v i d E. B o u n d y Registration No. 36,461
L A W OFFICES O F D O N N A L. A N G O T T I 140 Broadway, S u i t e 4600. New York, New York 10005 (212) 2 9 4 - 7 8 4 8 (212) 8 5 8 - 7 7 5 0 F a x

S u m m a r y o f Interviews T h i s p a p e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 26, 2 0 0 7

11

114595-02

S I N 09/611,548

P000797