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 - Reexaminations Move Along; Interval Holding Own
Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 11:05 AM EST

The reexaminations of the four Interval Licensing patents continue to move forward with the USPTO examiner issuing a second Action Closing Prosecution, this one on the '682 patent. In this instance the examiner has now confirmed the sole remaining challenged independent claim (two were confirmed at the time the Non-Final Action was issued) and all of the original 13 dependent claims that were challenged. In addition, the examiner has accepted 20 of the 24 dependent claims added by the patent holder during this reexamination. In other words, this reexamination looks like it will result in the complete affirmation of this patent.

While this is not a final action, the challenging party has no further right of response unless the patent holder decides to try to recover the four rejected dependent claims. If Interval does not respond to this action by December 1, the examiner will issue a Final Action.

This now brings two of the four reexamination proceedings against the Interval patents largely to a conclusion. With respect to these two patents, '314 and '682, there were nine independent claims and 22 dependent claims that were challenged. Of those, only one independent claim and one dependent claim have ultimately been rejected, a success rate of only 11% on the independent claims and 5% on the dependent claims. Not terribly good for the challenger.

The reexaminations of the '507 and '652 patents are still in process.

Here is an update of the reexamination table for the Interval patents:


Interval Licensing vs. AOL et al
as of 2011-11-16






















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 0 0 3 13 2 4
Totals 33 149 16 114 17 51 8 26 9 25 24 126
Percent of All Claims 100.00% 100.00% 48.48% 76.51% 51.52% 34.23% 24.24% 17.45% 27.27% 16.78% 72.73% 84.56%
Percent of Claims Reexamined





47.06% 50.98%




Reexamination - Patent No. 6757682 - Case No. 95/001576 [PDF]

'682 Action Closing Prosecution

Page 2

Control Number: 95/001,576
Art Unit: 3992

INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION

1. This is an action closing prosecution in the inter partes reexamination of USP 6,757,682 ("'682 patent").

2. Original claims 1-13, 16-17, 20 are under reexamination and the amendment filed Aug. 10, 2011 adding new dependent claims 21-44 has been entered. As such, claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are under reexamination.

3. Patent Owner's ("PO") remarks filed Aug. 10, 2011 have been entered. ("Remarks")

4. Third Party Requester's ("3PR") comments filed Sept. 9, 2011 have been entered. ("Comments")

References Cited in this Action

5. USP 7,082,407 to Bezos filed Aug. 19, 1999. ("Bezos")

6. USP 6,195,657 to Rucker filed Sep. 25, 1997. ("Rucker")

7. USP 6,049,777 to Sheena filed Mar. 14, 1997. ("Sheena")

8. USP 5,724,567 to Rose filed Apr. 25, 1995. ("Rose")

9. USP 6,466,918 to Spiegel et al. filed Nov. 18, 1999. ("Spiegel")

10. USP 6,681,369 to Meunier filed May. 5, 1999. ("Meunier")

11. Declaration of J. Ben Schafer, Ph.D executed Sept. 9, 2011. ("Shafer Declaration")

Page 3

Control Number: 95/001,576
Art Unit: 3992

Proposed Rejections

12. The Request/Comments indicate that 3PR considers:

(A) Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are anticipated by Bezos.

(B) Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are obvious over Bezos in view of Spiegel.

(C) Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are obvious over Bezos in view of Meunier.

............................................

(D) Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are anticipated by Spiegel/Bezos as a single anticipatory reference or alternatively these claims are obvious of Spiegel in view of Bezos.

(E) Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are obvious over Spiegel in view of Meunier.

............................................

(F) Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 21-44 are anticipated by Rucker.

............................................

(G) Claims 1-5, 8-10, 16-17, and 21-44 are anticipated by Sheena.

(H) Claims 6-7 and 11-13 are obvious over Sheena in view of Bezos.

............................................

(I) Claims 1-5, 8, 17, and 21-44 are anticipated by Rose.

(J) Claims 6-7, 9-13, and 16 are obvious over Rose in view of Bezos.

(K) Claims 9-10 and 16 are obvious over Rose in view of Sheena.

............................................

(L) Claims 21-44 are rejected under 35 USC 314(a).

(M) Claims 21-26, 29-34, 40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 USC 112-2nd.

(N) Claim 30 are rejected under 35 USC 112-4th.

(O) Claims 40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 USC 112-2nd.

(P) Claims 40, 42, and 44 are rejected under 35 USC 112-1st.

Page 4

Control Number: 95/001,576
Art Unit: 3992

Summary of this Action

13. Claims 1-13, 16-17, and 20 are confirmed as patentable.

14. Claims 21-29, 31-39, 41, and 43 are allowed as patentable.

15. Claims 30, 40, 42, and 44 are rejected.

16. Proposed rejections (A)-(M) and (P) are NOT adopted.

17. Proposed rejections (N)-(O) are adopted.


  


Allen v. World - Reexaminations Move Along; Interval Holding Own | 143 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 11:23 AM EST
If there are any. Using 'wrong --> right' in the subject often helps.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 11:25 AM EST
Discussions about the news picks.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic Discussions
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 11:27 AM EST
Discussions unrelated to the main article.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 11:31 AM EST
:-s

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software is Math - why doesn't this apply to all these types of patents?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 11:32 AM EST
Anyone?
Why are the USPTO, some ofthe courts, and some of the lawyers... so clueless?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World - Reexaminations Move Along; Interval Holding Own
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 12:06 PM EST
One of Groklaw's greatest strengths over the last decade has been the ability of
the previous major contributor to word complex legal issues in plain simple
English.

I'm sorry to say that the first paragraph of this article reads to me like
something written by a patent lawyer. Even the last sentence, in an apparent
attempt to clarify things, uses specialized language, such as "complete
affirmation".

I rarely visit Groklaw any more, and suspect this will become rarer still if I
can't grok the articles.

[ Reply to This | # ]

one piece missing
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, November 17 2011 @ 04:37 PM EST
Allen reminds me of Jack Harris, the man who spent seven years on a jigsaw, only to find out that there was one piece missing. Sad, so sad.



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ 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 )