Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10088784"

See other formats


Dec. 22. 2006 1:09PM 21436381 77 No. 2173 P. 21 

RECEIVED 
CENTRAL FAX CENTER 

Remarks ^ ^ 

In the office action, the .Examiner has rejected claims 63-82, 
89-90, 92-93, 96-98, 101-102, 106-109, 113-118 and 120-121 under 35 
U.S.C. §102 (b) as being anticipated by AirMobile. The Examiner has 
rejected claims 83-86, 99-100, 103 and 119 under 35 U.S.C §103(a> 
as being unpatentable over AirMobile in view of United States 
Patent No. 6,061,781 (hereinafter xx Nelson") . The Examiner has 
rejected claims 87-88, 95 and 110-111 under 35 U.S.C. §l03(a) as 
being unpatentable over AirMobile in view of United States Patent 
Wo. 6,185,551 (hereinafter "Birrell") . The Examiner has rejected 
claim 91 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over 
AirMobile in view of the LookSmart article. The Examiner has 
rejected claim 92 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable 
over AirMobile in view of United States application no. 60/132,560 
(hereinafter "Hertzog") ♦ The Examiner has rejected claims 104-105 
under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over AirMobile in 
view of the Infotech article. 

The applicant has cancelled claim 102-111. Claims 63-101 and 
113-121 are currently pending of which claims 63, 93, 113, 120 and 
121 are in independent form. 



Rejection under 35 U.S.C §102 fb) 

The Examiner has rejected claims 63-82, 89-90, 92-93, 96-98, 

101-102, 106-109, 113-118 and 120-121 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as 

17 



PAGE 21/27 1 RCVD AT 12122/2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard Time] * SVR;USPTQ-EFXRF-1/2 1 ONIS: 2738300 ' CS1D:2143638177 * DURATION (mm-ss):07-34 



Dec. 22. 2006 1:09PM 21436381 77 



No. 2173 P. 22 



being anticipated by AirMobile. The applicant has amended each of 
the independent claims, namely claims 63, 93, 113, 120 and 121, to 
more clearly define present invention. 

Claim 63, for example, now specifies that data messages 
received by the messaging host system are forwarded to the wireless 
redirector host system "without receiving a request from the 
wireless redirector host system'' to forward such data messages. 
This limitation clearly differentiates the claimed method from 
AirMobile. 

AirMobile is directed to an email forwarding scheme over a 

wireless network wherein two types of messaging delivery models are 

disclosed: (i) a "client poll" model and (ii) a "server push" 

model, (AirMobile page 25, under subsection heading "Messaging 

Models'')* The "client poll" model involves polling from the user's 

standpoint, i.e., the user needs to poll the host system by sending 

a request on a periodic basis to effectuate delivery of email 

messages from the host system to the user's device. The "server 

push" model, on the other hand, does not require the user to 

initiate contact with the host system to retrieve emails. 

AirMobile describes the "server push" model as excerpted below: 

With Motorola AirMobile, messages are "pushed" out to 
your portable PC from the server over the wireless 
network; you do not have to constantly call in to check 
for messages. This implementation of "server push" 
eliminates unnecessary communication between the client 
and server, minimizing communication costs and artificial 
delivery delays. 

18 

PAGE 22/27 * RCVD AT 12/22/2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard Time] * SVR:USPT0-EFXRF-1/2 * DNIS:2738300 * CSID:2143638177 * DURATION ^m-ss):07-34 



Dec. 22. 2006 1:09PM 21436381 77 



No. 2173 P. 23 



When you send a message while Motorola AirMobile is 
running, the message will be immediately processed from 
your outbox, assuming it passes your upload filters, and 
be delivered to your LAN-based cc:Mail server for 
ultimate delivery. 

When a message arrives for you in your LAN-based cc:Mail 
inbox, Motorola RirMobile software will immediately 
download the messages to your laptop, assuming it passes 
your download filters , placing it in your cc:Mail Mobile 
inbox. (AirMobile page 31, paragraphs 1-3). 

AirMobile describes the "server push" model as one that does 
not involve polling from the standpoint of a user, however, 
AirMobile provides that the AirMobile (AM) server software is 
required to poll a user's inbox at the mail server at a 
predetermined scheduler cycle period* (AirMobile page 23, 
paragraph 1) . Additionally, the AM server software is also 
required to poll the mail server at a predetermined inter-user 
time-out period. (AirMobile page 23, paragraph 2) . Thus, 

AirMobile is in fact a polling-based system that requires the AM 
server software to request emails from the mail server* 

Accordingly, the AirMobile "server push" messaging model does 
not teach or suggest the claimed method wherein the wireless 
redirector host system is not required to poll or otherwise 
generate a request to the messaging host system for facilitating 
forwarding of data messages received by the messaging host system. 

As such, AirMobile fails to disclose at least one of the claim 
limitations of claim 63. Claims 93, 113, 120 and 121 have similar 
claim limitations. Accordingly, applicant believes that each of 

19 



PAGE 23127 1 RCVD AT 12/22/2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard Time] * SVR:USPT0-EFXRF-1/2 * DNIS:2738300 ' CSID:2143638177 * DURATION (mm-ss):07-34 



Dec. 22. 2006 1:09PM 2 1436381 77 



No. 2173 P. 24 



independent claims 63, 93, 113, 120 and 121 is allowable over 
AirMobile. All other claims that have been rejected under 35 
U.S.C. §102 (b) as being anticipated by AirMobile have been canceled 
or depend from independent claims 63, 93 and 113. Accordingly, 
applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 
§102 (b) . 

Rejection under 35 U.S.C §103 (a) 

The Examiner has rejected claims 83-86, 99-100, 103 and 119 
under 35 U*S*C §103 (a) as being unpatentable over AirMobile in view 
of Nelson. Claim 103 has been cancelled. Claims 63, 93 and 113 
are allowable for the reasons stated above. Nelson does not cure 
the deficiencies of AirMobile. Each of claims 83-86, 99-100 and 
119 is dependent upon an allowable base claim. Accordingly, 
applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims under 35 
U.S.C. §103 (a) based upon AirMobile and Nelson* 

The Examiner has rejected claims 87-88, 95 and 110-111 under 
35 U.S.C §103 (a) as being unpatentable over AirMobile in view of 
Birrell, Claims 110-111 have been cancelled* Claims 63 and 93 are 
allowable for the reasons stated above. Birrell does not cure the 
deficiencies of AirMobile. Each of claims 87-88 and 95 is 
dependent upon an allowable base claim. Accordingly, applicant 
requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 
§103 (a) based upon AirMobile and Birrell.. 

20 



PAGE 24/27 * RCVDAT 12/22/2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard The] 1 SVR:USPT0«EFXRF-1/2 1 DNIS:2738300 * CSID:2143638177 * DURATION (mm-ss):07-34 



Dec. 22. 2006 1:1 0PM 2 1436381 77 



No. 2173 P. 25 



The Examiner has rejected claim 91 under 35 U.S.C §103 (a) as 
being unpatentable over AirMobile in view of the LookSmart article. 
Claim 63 is allowable for the reasons stated above. LookSmart does 
not cure the deficiencies of AirMobile. Claim 91 is dependent upon 
allowable base claim 63, Accordingly, applicant requests 
withdrawal of the rejection of claim 91 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) . 

The Examiner has rejected claim 92 under 35 U,S,C §103 (a) as 
being unpatentable over AirMobile in view of Hertzog. Claim 63 is 
allowable for the reasons stated above. Hertzog does not cure the 
deficiencies of AirMobile. Claim 92 is dependent upon allowable 
base claim 63. Accordingly, applicant requests withdrawal of the 
rejection of claim 92 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a). 

The Examiner has rejected claims 104-105 under 35 U.S.C 
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over AirMobile in view of the 
Infotech article. Claims 104-105 have been cancelled. 

Accordingly, applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection of 
claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) based upon AirMobile and Infotech. 



21 



PAGE 25/27 1 RCVD AT 12/22(2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard Time] " SVR:USPT0-EFXRM/2 ' DNIS:2738300 * CS1D:2143638177 * DURATION (mm-ss):07-34 



Dec. 22. 2006 1:10PM 2143638 1 77 No. 2173 P. 26 

RECEIVED 
CENTRAL FAX CENTER 

DEC 2 2 2006 

Fee Statement 

Compared to the previous filing, the number of independent 
claims has decreased and the total number of claims. has decreased. 
Applicant is filling herewith, a Petition for a Three-Month 
Extension of Time and a Request for Continued Examination* Form 
PTO-2038 is enclosed herewith authorizing payment of $1,810.00 
($1,020.00 for a three-month extension of time and $790.00 for the 
Request)- Applicant believes no additional fees are due for the 
filing of this response. If any additional fees are due or any 
overpayments have been made, however, please charge or credit our 
deposit account (Deposit Account No. 03-1130) . 

Conclusion 

In view of the forgoing, the Examiner is respectfully 
requested to allow the claims presented for consideration herein. 
Accordingly, a favorable action in the form of an early notice of 
allowance is respectfully requested- The Examiner is requested to 
call the undersigned for any reason that would advance the instant 
application to issue. 



22 



PAGE 26/27 * RCVD AT 12122/2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard frnie] * SVR:USPT0«EFXRF-1/2 * DNIS:2738300 ' CSID:2143638177 * DURATION (mm-ss):07-34 



Dec. 22. 2006 1:10PM 21436381 77 



No. 2173 P. 27 



Dated this 22nd day of December, 2006. 

Respectfully submitted: 




Lawren^e^R, Youst 
Reg. No. 38,795 
Danamraj & Youst, P.C. 
Premier Place, Suite 1450 
5910 North Central Expressway 
Dallas, Texas 75206 
Tel 214.363.4266 
Fax 214.363.8177 



23 

PAGE 27/27 * RCVD AT 12/22/2006 2:04:36 PM [Eastern Standard Time] * SVR:USPT0-EFXRF-1/2 * DNIS:2738300 * CSID:21436381 77 * DURATION (mrn-ss):07-34