Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Appellant responded with an amendment which (a) canceled claims 1-8, 12, 13, 15, and
2 16; (b) rewrote dependent claims 9-11 and 14 in independent form while also amending
3 "compressed or non-compressed" to read "compressed"; (c) added new claims 17-92, and
4 (d) requested that the examiner's assertions of "well known practices" be supported by the
5 citation of references.6 Following an interview with the examiner,7 appellant filed a
6 supplemental response8 which canceled claims 17-92, added new claims 93-104, and was
7 accompanied by a Rule 132 declaration by Anthony Brown alleging commercial success of the
8 claimed invention.
9 In a nonfinal second Office action ("Second Action"”)9 by a different examiner,10 the
10 examiner held the Brown Declaration ineffective to prove commercial success. Second Action
11 at 1, para. 4. As support for the assertion that "well known practices" included UNIX-based
12 host systems and server systems and RISC and CISC microprocessors, the examiner cited The
13 Electronics Engineers' Handbook and twenty-nine articles apparently obtained from the on-line
14 Gale Group Computer Database, File 275, which we will hereinafter refer to as "the Gale
15 articles." Second Action at 7-8, para. 11. These articles apparently were selected using the
16 search terms "network," "Unix," "server," "RISC," and "CISC," as evidenced by the fact that
6 "Response to February 23, 2001, Office Action in Reexamination " (Paper No. 12).
7 The Interview Summary Record is Paper No. 15.
8 "Supplemental Response to February 23, 2001 Office Action and May 22, 2[0]01
Interview in Reexamination" (Paper No. 16).
9 Paper No. 20.
10 The reexamination proceeding was assigned to a different examiner at appellant's
request. June 27, 2001, "Decision on Petition" (Paper No. 18).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007