Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 107

Declaration of Winslow B. Taub filed by Plaintiffs Apple, Inc., Next Softward, Inc. re: 90 Motion Requesting Claims Construction by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, '486 Inf. Chart, # 2 Ex. B, '354 file history excerpt, # 3 Ex. C, '354 file history excerpt, # 4 Ex. D, Spielman report excerpts, # 5 Ex. E, '983 file history excerpts, # 6 Ex. F, '983 file history excerpts, # 7 Ex. G, '337 Inf. Chart, # 8 Ex. H, '002 Inf. Chart, # 9 Ex. I, '002 file history excerpt, # 10 Ex. J, '002 file history excerpt, # 11 Ex. K, '002 file history excerpt, # 12 Ex. L, dictionary definitions, # 13 Ex. N, JPS63-167588 cert. trans., # 14 Ex. O, appl. 08/050952 file history excerpt, # 15 Ex. P, invalidity conten. excerpt, # 16 Ex. Q, 6,371,977, # 17 Ex. R, 5,474,831) (Haslam, Robert) Modified on 7/18/2011 (llj).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT E /- 73048-7035 DocketNo. iN TREtNLTEDSATESXTENT NOv Orton Applicants No. Serial et 04 AND TRADEMARK OTLC 09/140523 26 Docket Group 1999 al. Art Unit P-046.63 2762 Examiner Filed August 1998 For OBJECT-ORIENTED OPERATING OFFICE 3. Chavis SYSTEM AMENDM Commissioner Honorable Assistant of Patents and Trademarks D.C. Washington 20231 Sir Please consider the remarks following in response to the Action of August Office 1999 as follows REMARKS Claims The Examiner Patent In l-30remain case. claims rejected 11-30 double for non-statutory over patenting claims 1-4 of US 5379432. the terminal herewith is response and filed The Examiner the response respond rejected claims to overcome must Applicant of the this Report assert that object-oriented 103 over October Schmidts methods accompanying the communication rejection. Systems Schmidt 1992 disclosed at this Examiners of the ground USC under 35 11-30 Wrappers to invocations CFR l.321 under 37 disclaimer believed With Programming In in the technique as run-time is does definitely claimed by not the Applicant. Instead Schmidts is limited allowing references repeated error to checking references Schmidt to compile-time. at to using also compile-time stronger type-checking inline functions refers repeatedly rather type-safe than is proof to the benefit run-time. operations and He of also that his the his technique makes type mismatch technique a.s repeated detection 9530_I 983FH164 WI-AppIe00006O7 Docket Serial No. 09/140523 which are compile time time as own wrappers fails Schmidt C-i--i-. to disclose claimed by claimed the differences in the the object invention while running Schmidt By the above resolved. claims allow 1.17 the or credit whereas even is an of pass the methods timely the the all of the issues hereby authorized of to Deposit Account 2f by the by the Examiners this to No. any charge amendment under Thus in claimed at run-time system at and simply once development time. Examiner have been of reconsideration the Bt additional 37 C.F.R. fees which 1.16 and Order No. __________ 13-4503 submitted FINNEGAN LL.P. rlohnE.Hoet Registration No. 26279 202-857-7887 Telephone 202-857-7929 Facsimile ADDRESS Finnegan LL.P. Morgan Eye run- invention. raise the requests it wrapper. completed claimed MORO 1775 at to issue consideration any overpayment located is locating Applicants respectfully is compiling appropriate are wrapper Schmidt in the Respectfully SENDERS to learn programmers object-oriented program once using the case Commissioner for the Dated for way and designing developers effective use runs it believes Applicant and writing suggest Applicant the claims Assistant required statements or the remarks allows on which platform executing Accordingly The may be or about talks it to invocations responding invention oriented to disclose fails also stating 3048-7035 the Applicant. The Applicants by Schmidt featuyes. their implementing No. Street Washington NW. Suite 400 D.C. 20006 9330_I 983FH165 WI-AppIe00006O8

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?