decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Allen v. World - Reexamination Update - 10-31-2011
Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 08:00 AM EDT

There has been a bit of reexamination action on the Interval Licensing patents asserted by Paul Allen against everybody and their brother (or sister). As we noted back on August 3rd (Interval Files First Response to Office Action), Interval filed a response to the examiner's office action on U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314 agreeing to the cancellation of claims 5 (independent) and 6 (dependent) but adding 16 new dependent claims. The USPTO is now ready to make those changes final unless it receives a further challenge from the party making the reexamination request by November 14, 2011. (Action Closing Prosecution (non-final) [PDF only]) This notice is just short of making the determinations final.

In a separate action the USPTO has issued a non-final action on U.S. Patent 6,034,652. (Reexam - Non-Final Action [PDF;Text]) The requesting party had challenged four independent claims and five dependent claims in this ex parte reexamination request. After considering the request and all of the cited prior art, the examiner has determined that three of the independent claims and one of the dependent claims are unpatentable. The remaining challenged claims are confirmed.

Here is the updated reexamination table for Interval Licensing:

Interval Licensing vs. AOL et al
as of 2011-10-31






















Patent No. Claims Claims Not Subject to Reexam Claims Subject to Reexam Claims Rejected Claims Confirmed Claims Surviving

Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep
6263507 15 114 11 90 4 24 4 24 0 0 11 90
6034652 9 9 5 4 4 5 3 1 1 4 6 8
6788314 6 9 0 16 6 9 1 1 5 8 5 24
6757682 3 17 0 4 3 13 1 13 2 0 2 4
Totals 33 149 16 114 17 51 9 39 8 12 24 126
Percent of All Claims 100.00% 100.00% 48.48% 76.51% 51.52% 34.23% 27.27% 26.17% 24.24% 8.05% 72.73% 84.56%
Percent of Claims Reexamined





52.94% 76.47%



At this juncture Interval still stands to lose 53% of the challenged independent claims and 76% of the challenged dependent claims, but much of the final outcome will hinge on what happens with the '507 patent.

******************

Documents

Non-Final Action - Patent No. 6,034,652

EX PARTE REEXAMINATION NON-FINAL ACTION

1. This is a non-final action in the ex parte reexamination of claims 4-8. 11. and 15-18 of USP 6,034,652 ("'652 patent").

References Cited Proceeding

2. USP 5,748,190 to Kjorsvik filed Sep. 5, 1995. ("Kjorsvik")

3. USP 5,781,894 to Petrecca filed Aug. 11,1995. ("Petrecca")

4. USP 5,913,040 to Rakavy filed Aug. 22, 1995. ("Rakavy")

5. USP 5,740,549 to Reilly filed Jun. 12, 1995. ("Reilly")

6. USP 5,796,945 to Tarabella filed Jun. 7, 1995. ("Tarabella")

7. Roberts, Jason. Director Demystified. Peachpit Press. 1995. ("Roberts")

8. Salm, Walter. "Buying a Real Computer Monitor". Popular Electronics. October 1984. pp. 102-103, 132, and 134. ("Salm")

2

Claim Rejections

9. Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Kjorsvik.

As to claim 15. Kjorsvik discloses a computer readable medium encoded with one or more computer programs for enabling acquisition of a set of content data (presentations; col.4:19-25) and display of an image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations) on a display device (monitor) during operation of an attention manager (presentation system), comprising:

  • acquisition instructions for enabling acquisition of a set of content data (presentations) from a specified information source (e.g. other network servers with databases having presentation information);

    (Administration module #26 has the capability of communication with external sources, including other network servers with databases having presentation information. The administration module #26 and database #24 on server #18 are responsible for generating the various slide presentations, selecting particular slide presentations for the individual PCS in the network and scheduling those presentations in a particular sequence, col. 2:58-67)

  • user interface (messenger module #22) installation instructions for enabling provision of a user interface (messenger module) that allows a person to request the set of content data (presentations) from the specified information source (other network server with database having presentation information)

    (The messenger module can be loaded into a network PC from any external source, including the hard disk on the server, col.2:48-50. see also col.2:43 to col.3:17)

  • content data (presentation) scheduling instructions (col. 4:17-19) for providing temporal constraints (scheduling of presentations is inherently a temporal constraint) on the display of the image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations),
  • wherein the content data (presentation) scheduling instructions further comprise sequencing instructions (col.3:l-5) that specify an order in which the images (presentation slides) generated from a set of content data (presentations) are displayed; and

3

  • display instructions (e.g., col.3:l-5) for enabling display of the image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations).

As to claim 16, Kjorsvik discloses the sequencing instructions (col.3:40) further specify the duration of the display of each image or images generated from each set of content data. (Each slide is shown for a preselect amount of time, col 5:14-17)

As to claim 18. Kjorsvik discloses a computer readable medium encoded with one or more computer programs for enabling acquisition of a set of content data (presentations; col.4:19-25) and display of an image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations) on a display device (monitor) during operation of an attention manager (presentation system), comprising:

  • acquisition instructions for enabling acquisition of a set of content data (presentations) from a specified information source (e.g. other network servers with databases having presentation information)',

    (Administration module #26 has the capability of communication with external sources, including other network servers with databases havins presentation information. The administration module #26 and database #24 on server #18 are responsible for generating the various slide presentations, selecting particular slide presentations for the individual PCS in the network and scheduling those presentations in a particular sequence, col.2:58-67)

  • user interface (messenger module #22) installation instructions for enabling provision of a user interface (messenger module) that allows a person to request the set of content data (presentations) from the specified information source (other network server with database having presentation information)

    (The messenger module can be loaded into a network PC from any external source, including the hard disk on the server, col. 2:48-50. see also col. 2:43 to col. 3:17)

  • content data (presentation) scheduling instructions (col. 4:17-19) for providing temporal constraints (scheduling of presentations is inherently a temporal constraint) on the display of the image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations),
  • display instructions (e.g., col.3:l-5) for enabling display of the image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set Of content data (presentations).

4

  • content data (presentation) update instructions (col. 4:34-37) for enabling acquisition of an updated set of content data (presentations) from an information source (other network server with database having presentation information) that corresponds to a previously acquired set of content data (presentations from same network server)',

    (A particular slide may be edited at any time for presentation flexibility. The system database 24 is updated immediately upon such editing so as to impact the presentations in effect on-line, col.4:34-37. see also col.2:43 to col.3:17)

  • operating instructions for beginning, managing and terminating (figs. 14-15) the display on the display device (monitor) of an image (presentation slide) generated from a set of content data (presentations):
  • content display system (individual PC and monitor) scheduling instructions for scheduling the display of the image or images (presentation slides) on the display device (monitor);
  • installation instructions for installing the operating instructions and content display system (individual PC and monitor) scheduling instructions on the content display system (individual PC and monitor); and

    (The messenger module can be loaded into a network PC from any external source, including the hard disk on the server, col. 2:48-50. see also col. 2:43 to col. 3:17. The administration module can be loaded into and executed from any PC in the network, col. 2:51-53)

  • audit instructions for monitoring usage of the content display system (individual PC and monitor) to selectively display an image or images (presentation slides) generated from a set of content data (presentations).

    (The administration module #26 and database #24 on server #18 are responsible for generating the various slide presentations, selecting particular slide presentations for the individual PCs in the network and scheduling those presentations in a particular sequence, col.2:65-67)

10. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Kjorsvik in view of Petrecca.

As to claim 17. Kjorsvik discloses a computer readable medium encoded with one or more computer programs for enabling acquisition of a set of content data (presentations: col.4:19-25) and display of an image or images (presentation slides)

5

generated from the set of content data (presentations) on a display device (monitor) during operation of an attention manager (computer), comprising:

  • acquisition instructions for enabling acquisition of a set of content data (presentations) from a specified information source (e.g. other network servers with databases having presentation information)',

    (Administration module #26 has the capability of communication with external sources, including other network servers with databases having presentation information. The administration module #26 and database #24 on server #18 are responsible for generating the various slide presentations, selecting particular slide presentations for the individual PCS in the network and scheduling those presentations in a particular sequence, col.2:58-67)

  • user interface (messenger module #22) installation instructions for enabling provision of a user interface (messenger module) that allows a person to request the set of content data (presentations) from the specified information source (other network server with database having presentation information)

    (The messenger module can be loaded into a network PC from any external source, including the hard disk on the server, col. 2:48-50. see also col. 2:43 to col. 3:17)

  • content data (presentation) scheduling instructions (col. 4:17-19) for providing temporal constraints (scheduling of presentations is inherently a temporal constraint) on the display of the image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations),
  • display instructions (e.g., col.3:1-5) for enabling display of the image or images (presentation slides) generated from the set of content data (presentations).

Kjorsvik does not specifically disclose wherein the content data (presentation) scheduling instructions further comprise saturation instructions that constrain the number of times that the image or images (presentation slides) generated from a set of content data (presentations) can be displayed. Petrecca teaches, however, an advertising system to be used with personal computers which enables sponsors to present advertisements to a user during periods of waiting time which are inherent in normal computer use. (Abstract) Petrecca teaches this advertising system could keep

6

track of the number of times that it presents a particular advertisement and be configured to stop presenting an advertisement after a certain number of presentations. (col.3:4-J8) Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g. a network engineer) to modify the system of Kjorsvik to keep track of the number of times that it presents a particular advertisement and to stop presenting an advertisement after a certain number of presentations (i.e. saturation instructions) for the advantage of avoiding saturating the user with stale content data (presentations).

[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

7

Reasons for Confirming Claims as Patentable

11. Claims 4-8 and 11 are confirmed as patentable. The reasons for confirming these claims as patentable over the prior art of record are presented below.

The '652 patent specification discloses two embodiments wherein the attention manager makes use of 'unused capacity' of the display device. The first is the 'screensaver embodiment' wherein the information can be presented to a person while the apparatus (e.g. computer) is operating, but during inactive periods (i.e., when a user is not engaged in an intensive interaction with the apparatus). (col.2:8-12)

The second is the 'wallpaper embodiment' wherein information can be presented to the person during active periods (i.e. when a user is engaged in an intensive interaction with the apparatus) but in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from the primary interaction with the device (e.g. the information is presented in areas of a display screen that are not used by displayed information associated with the primary interaction with the apparatus), (col.2:12-18)

Independent claim 4 claims means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from the set of content data in combination with the other limitations of the claim. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of independent claim 4, in light of the specification, excludes the screensaver embodiment because the claim language "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus" is consistently and repeatedly linked to the 'wallpaper embodiment' and

8

excludes the 'screensaver embodiment', (see also col.3:20-40, col.6:34-52, and col. 13:10- 11)

Kjorsvik is a presentation system for displaying presentations on individual PCs in a network following passage of selected amount of time during which the PC is on but is not used. (Abstract)

Rakavy discloses a screensaver subsystem which detects that the system has been idle for a preconfigured time and activates an Advertisements Display Manager that selects and advertisement and displays it. (col. 7:63-8:3)

Reilly discloses a computer based information distribution system for distributing information and advertising to each subscriber's computer during time periods in which subscriber's computer is otherwise inactive, (col. 1:5-10)

Tarabella discloses displaying image collections on a video terminal during idle time of the computer, (col.2:41)

As such, Kjorsvik, Rakavy, Reilly, and/or Tarabella do not disclose or suggest a means for selectively displaying on the display device, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the apparatus from a primary interaction with the apparatus, an image or images generated from the set of content data in combination with the other limitations in the claims because they are directed to display of images during an idle/inactive time of the computer (i.e., 'screensaver embodiment') and the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4, in light of the specification, excludes the 'screensaver embodiment' for the reasons set forth above.

9



  


Allen v. World - Reexamination Update - 10-31-2011 | 68 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 08:14 AM EDT
Please mention what is wrong in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 08:15 AM EDT
Please make links the clicky kind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 08:17 AM EDT
Please mention the name of the news story in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - Reexamination Update - 10-31-2011
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 08:47 AM EDT
So, has the USPTO ruled in error at all? If so, where?

Have they invented their own version of patent for software based on their point
of view, or the court's point of view?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes documents here
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 09:34 AM EDT
Your help is appreciated, you can book documents for transcribing here
http://www .groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=ComesBooking

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2011 and released under the Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Adding *new* dependent claims?
Authored by: UnixGuy on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 12:37 PM EDT
That came as a surprise to me, even knowing somewhat of the patent system. So
they can take a patent applied for 11 years ago and issued 7 years ago, and add
new claims on it based on what seems good to claim now? Really?

That seems like an even worse variation on the "submarine" patent
problem.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question for Mark
Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 03:25 PM EDT
Mark, I would be eternally grateful, if you could throw a little light on the
subject of 'added dependent claims'.

1.) Am I correct in my assumption that dependent claims, basically, add
specifics to the independent claim which precede them?

2.) Do all such 'specifics' in dependent claims have to be infringed for the
related independent claim to be considered infringed?

3.) In the case of U.S. Patent No. 6,788,314 and its 16 new dependent claims,
is it possible for the patentee to claim infringement (in an ongoing case)
notwithstanding the fact that the accused infringer had no knowledge of said
claims prior to their addition during the re-examination? Has this anomaly
arisen in previous case law, or am I worrying unduly?

Yes/No answers will suffice. Thanks

---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wouldn't be too worried about Android
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 01 2011 @ 09:07 PM EDT
There's nothing MS (or Apple) can do to stop Android. No
matter what lawsuits or threats get made,
Google/Motorola/Samsung/HTC/Amazon (and many others) are
simply way too powerful for Android to be derailed. These
companies can afford to pay off the dirty tricks that MS and
Apple are pulling. I suspect the general public may find
Apple's "slide-to-unlock" patent just as preposterous as
Amazon's "one-click-checkout" patent from the early days of
online shopping.

It seems inevitable that the smartphone patent wars will get
the general public to start to wake up to the utter greed
behind current "IP" issues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )