|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
