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.


To read comments to this article, go here
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.


  View Printable Version


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 )