Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 these terms appear in bold in the articles. Regarding the use of a windowing environment,
2 recited in claim 14, the examiner asserted, without citing a reference, that it was known to use a
3 program called Xwindows. Id. at 6.
4 As evidence that it was known to use more than one compression technique, the examiner
5 cited an article by Carr and U.S. patents to De Maine, Giltner, Notenboom, and LeGall. Second
6 Action at 8. In addition to repeating the rejection based on Filepp in view of "well known
7 practices," the examiner added new rejections based on U.S. patents to Yurt,11 Kirchner, Cohen,
8 and Sugiyama and on articles by Punj and Bridges and also rejected some claims under the first
9 and/or second paragraphs of § 112.
10 Appellant responded12 by amending claims 93-96 and 99-104, submitting declarations
11 37 CFR § 1.131 (Rule 131) by inventor Anthony Rozmanith and noninventor Egon Fabian in an
12 attempt to antedate Yurt, and submitting a thirty-page declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 entitled
13 "Declaration of Philip Koopman, Ph.D." (hereinafter "First Koopman Declaration"), which
14 addresses the § 112 rejections and the prior-art rejections.
15 The nonfinal, third Office action ("Third Action")13 is 109 pages long. At pages 72-108,
16 which provide the statements of the rejections, the examiner repeated the rejection based on
17 Filepp in view of well known practices (citing the supporting references) and other rejections
18 and adds new rejections based on additional references including Row, Paolini, Walter, Pocock,
11 The rejections based on Yurt applied to claims 93, 95, 96, 100, and 102-104.
12 Paper No. 24.
13 Paper No. 26.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007