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).
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?