Docket No.: 418278883US1 (PATENT) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Reexamination Application of: Patent No. 6,725,281 Application No.: 90/011,541 Confirmation No.: 5471 Filed: March 7, 2011 Art Unit: 3992 For: SYNCHRONIZATION OF CONTROLLED Examiner: R. S. Desai DEVICE STATE TABLE AND EVENTING IN DATA-DRIVEN REMOTE DEVICE CONTROL MODEL RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION IN EX PARTE REEXAMINATION Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Sir: INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS Patent owner acknowledges receipt of the Office Action dated August 16, 2011. Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begins on page 2 of this paper. Remarks/Arguments begin on page 11 of this paper. 41827-8883.US01/LEGAL21648953.3 Comcast, Exhibit-1121 1
35
Embed
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS Amendments to the Claims … › files › 2017 › IPR2017... · 2017-03-22 · Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begins
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Claims 1-4 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,725,281 ("the '281 patent") were
considered in the Non-Final Office Action ("the Office Action") mailed on August 16,
2011. The third party requester did not request reexamination of the remaining claims.
Accordingly, claims 5-19, 21, and 22 are notsubjectto reexamination. 1
The patent owner herein amends claim 20, presents new claims 23-69, and does
not cancel any claims. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 20, and 23-69 are currently under
consideration.
The Office Action rejects claims 1, 3, 4, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
U.S. Patent No. 6,404,743 to Meandzija ("Meandzija"), rejects claims 1, 3, 4, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over U.S. Patent No. 6, 167,433 to Maples et al. ("Maples"),
rejects claims 1, 3, 4, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of U.S.
Patent No. 6,389,464 to Krishnamurthy et al. ("Krishnamurthy") and Meandzija, and
rejects claims 1-4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of U.S. Patent
No. 5,655,081 to Bonnell et al. ("Bonnell") and Maples. The patent owner respectfully
traverses these rejections and, at least for the reasons set forth below, submits that
each of the claims under consideration is patentable over the applied references, alone
or in combination.
II. Current Status of Litigation Involving the '281 patent
The '281 patent is currently the subject of litigation between Microsoft
Corporation and Tivo Inc. The case is captioned Case No. 5:1 O-cv-00240-LHK,
Microsoft Corporation v. Tivo Inc. Proceedings in the litigation have been stayed
pending completion of re-examination.
1 Silence regarding a position taken, or argument made, by the Examiner does not indicate any acquiescence to that position or argument. Furthermore, arguments made with respect to any particular claim or claims apply to only those claims and not to any other claims or patents/applications unless specifically noted herein.
station." (Jones Declaration, 1f 9.) However, Dr. Jones does not point to any portion of
Meandzija that describes an MIB database containing a "copy" of any state table of the
agent station. Rather, Meandzija describes a management station that receives values
from MIB objects and stores information extracted from MIBs in a database.
(Meandzija, 10:1-16.) Meandzija provides no indication that this "database" is a "copy"
of any MIB or state table or that information retrieved from any MIB constitutes a copy of
the MIB.
VIII. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Meandzija
A. Meandzija does not Qualify as Prior Art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Patent owner submits that Meandzija does not qualify as prior art to the '281
patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). According to the United States Code,
"[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless-
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States."
(35 U.S.C. § 102.) Meandzija, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application
No. 60/064, 178, was filed on May 11, 1998 and issued on June 11, 2002. U.S. Patent
Publication No. 2002/0085571, which corresponds to Meandzija, was published on
July 4, 2002. The '281 patent, however, was filed on November 2, 1999. Thus,
Meandzija was not patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United
States (November 2, 1999). Moreover, the Office Action does not establish that the
disclosure of Meandzjia was in public use or on sale in this country more than one year
prior to November 2, 1999. Accordingly, Meandzija does not qualify as prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For at least this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the
Examiner withdraw this rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 20.
Notwithstanding the improper rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), patent owner would like to make the following comments regarding differences
between the pending claims and Meandzija.
8. Meandzija does not disclose "a user control point module in the user controller device operating to obtain a copy of the state table," as claim 1 recites
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a user control point module in the user
controller device operating to obtain a copy of the state table of the user controller
device." The Office Action relies on Meandzija at 9:50-54, 10:37-40, 11 :31-35, 11 :48-
55, Figure 2, and Figure 4 as disclosing this feature. (Office Action, August 16, 2011,
p. 8.) According to the Office Action, Meandzija's "MIB" corresponds to the recited
"state table." (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 6.) Even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that Meandzija's "MIB" corresponds to "a state table maintained by the
controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled
computing device," which patent owner does not concede, the relied-upon portions of
Meandzija do not disclose a user control point operating to obtain a QQQY of the MIB.
The relied-upon portions of Meandzija describe two separate data structures
stored by different entities: the SNMP-based MIB, stored by an SNMP agent, and an
ITU-T X.731-based "state information module" stored at an "SNMP management
station." (See Meandzija, Figure 2.) The Office Action does not point to any portion of
Meandzija that discloses that Meandzija's state information module is a "copy" of
Meandzija's MIB. Meandzija's state information module includes a "management state"
that "represents the instantaneous condition of availability and operability of the
associated agent resource from the point of view of management" and further includes
"a number of states and status functions, including a management state, an
administrative state, an operational state, a usage state, a procedural status, an alarm
status, an availability status, control status, a standby status, and an unknown status."
(Meandzija, 11 :31-35 and Figure 4.) Meandzija's MIB, in contrast, comprises
asserts, the "state information module can thus store the updated change in states at
the managed station," the Jones declaration fails to point to, and patent owner is unable
to find, any portion of Meandzija disclosing that the state information is a "copy" of the
MIB.
For at least these reasons, the relied-upon portions of Meandzija do not
identically disclose "a user control point module in the user controller device operating
to obtain a copy of the state table" as claim 1 recites. Patent owner respectfully
requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 3 and 4.
C. Meandzija does not disclose "a user control point module in the control point computing device operating to obtain a copy of the state table," as claim 20 recites
Independent claim 20 now recites, inter alia, "a user control point module in the
control point computing device operating to obtain a copy of the state table of the
control point computing device." This feature is similar to the feature discussed above
with respect to claim 1, which the Office Action relies on Meandzija at 9:50-54, 10:37-
40, 11 :31-35, 11 :48-55, Figure 2, and Figure 4 as disclosing. (Office Action, August 16,
2011, p. 8.) As discussed above, the relied-upon portions of Meandzija describe two
separate data structures stored by different entities: the SNMP-based MIB, stored by
an SNMP agent, and an ITU-T X.731-based "state information module" stored at an
"SNMP management station." (See Meandzija, Figure 2.) The Office Action does not
establish that the state information module is a "copy" of the MIB or that the SNMP
management station operates to "obtain a copy" of the MIB. For at least these reasons,
the relied-upon portions of Meandzija do not identically disclose "a user control point
module in the control point computing device operating to obtain a copy of the state
table of the control point computing device," as claim 20 now recites. For at least this
reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw
D. Meandzija does not disclose "a state table maintained by the controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled computing device," as claims 1 and 20 recite
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite, inter alia, "a state table maintained by the
controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled
computing device." The Office Action relies on Meandzija at 10:3-10 as disclosing this
feature, pointing specifically to Meandzija's "agent" as corresponding to the recited
"controlled computing device" and Meandzija's "MIB" as corresponding to the recited
"state table." (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 6.) As discussed above, Meandzija's
MIB comprises "managed objects" each representing a "managed resource."
(Meandzija, 10:3-10.) The information stored in Meandzija's MIB pertains to those
resources managed by the agent, not the agent itself. Thus, Meandzija's MIB does not
represent an operational state of Meandzija's SNMP agent. Accordingly, Meandzija's
MIB does not maintain information representing an operational state of Meandzija's
agent which, according to the Office Action, corresponds to the recited "controlled
computing device." (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 6.) Accordingly, the relied-upon
portions of Meandzija do not identically disclose "a state table maintained by the
controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled
computing," as claims 1 and 20 recite. For at least this reason, patent owner
respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw this rejection of independent claims 1
and 20 and dependent claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 1 .
E. Meandzija does not disclose "the state table comprising: a plurality of entries, each entry comprising: a variable identifier; and a current value," as claim 4 recites
Dependent claim 4 recites, inter alia, "the state table comprising: a plurality of
entries, each entry comprising: a variable identifier; and a current value." The Office
Action relies on Meandzija at 2:66-3:9 as disclosing these features, pointing specifically
to Meandzija's MIB. (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 11.) The MIB defines objects
where "each object type is named by an object identifier, an administratively assigned
name" and "[t]he object type together with an object instance serves to uniquely
identify a specific instantiation of the object." (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 11
(quoting Meandzija, 3:3-7) (emphasis added by Office Action).) Patent owner
respectfully disagrees that Meandzija's object identifier or object instance are variable
identifiers. Although different objects may have different object identifiers and each
instance of an object may correspond to different instantiations of an object, for a
specific instantiation of an object, neither the value of the object identifier nor the object
instance value change. In other words, the object identifier and the object instance are
not "variable identifiers." If either the object identifier value or the object instance value
could change for an instantiated object, the object type (object identifier value) and
object instance would not serve to uniquely identify a specific instantiation, which is in
contrast to Meandzija's description. Accordingly, the relied-upon portions of Meandzija
do not identically disclose a "state table comprising: a plurality of entries, each entry
comprising: a variable identifier; and a current value," as claim 4 recites. For at least
this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
withdraw this rejection of claim 4.
IX. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Meandzija and Krishnamurthy
A. The combination of Meandzija and Krishnamurthy neither describes nor suggests "a user control point module in the user controller device operating to obtain a copy of the state table," as claim 1 recites
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a user control point module in the user
controller device operating to obtain a copy of the state table of the user controller
device." As the Office Action points out, Krishnamurthy does not disclose this feature.
(Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 35.) The Office Action relies on Meandzija at 9:50-
54, 10:37-40, 11 :31-35, 11 :48-55, and Figure 4 as disclosing this feature. (Office
Action, August 16, 2011, pp. 35-36.) As discussed above, Meandzija does not disclose
"a user control point module in the user controller device operating to obtain a copy of
the state table of the user controller device." Rather, the relied-upon portions of
Meandzija describe two separate data structures stored by different entities: the SNMP-
based MIB, stored by an SNMP agent, and an ITU-T X.731-based "state information
module" stored at an "SNMP management station," neither of which is a "copy" of the
other. (See Meandzija, Figure 2.) For at least this reason, the relied-upon portions of
the applied references neither describe nor suggest "a user control point module ...
operating to obtain a copy of the state table" as claim 1 recites. Patent owner
respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claims 3 and 4.
B. The combination of Meandzija and Krishnamurthy neither describes nor suggests "a user control point module in the control point computing device operating to obtain a copy of the state table," as claim 20 recites
Independent claim 20 now recites, inter alia, "a user control point module in the
control point computing device operating to obtain a copy of the state table of the
control point computing device." This feature is similar to the feature discussed above
with respect to claim 1, which the Office Action relies on Meandzija at 9:50-54, 10:37-
40, 11 :31-35, 11 :48-55, and Figure 4 as disclosing this feature. (Office Action,
August 16, 2011, pp. 35-36.) As discussed above, Meandzija does not disclose this
feature. For at least reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1,
patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this
rejection of claim 20.
C. The combination of Meandzija and Krishnamurthy neither describes nor suggests "a state table maintained by the controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled computing device," as claims 1 and 20 recite
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite, inter alia, "a state table maintained by the
controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled
computing device." The Office Action relies on Krishnamurthy at 4:44-47, 6:36-44, and
6:55-65 as disclosing this feature, pointing specifically to Krishnamurthy's "MIB" as
corresponding to the recited "state table" and Krishnamurthy's "site server" as
corresponding to the recited "controlled computing device." (Office Action, August 16,
2011, pp. 33-34). The relied-upon portions of Krishnamurthy describe 1) MIS files,
2) configuration data "used in connection with MIS files," and 3) guiding "a user to enter
configuration information to associate a particular device to be managed from the site
server 12 to a MIS table." None of the relied-upon portions of Krishnamurthy, however,
suggest that Krishnamurthy's MIS represents an operational state of Krishnamurthy's
site server. Rather, information in the MIS is associated with "a particular device to be
managed from the site server." (Krishnamurthy, 6:42-43 (emphasis added).)
Furthermore, the Office Action does not point to any portion of Krishnamurthy that
describes the managed devices maintaining an MIS. The relied-upon portions of
Krishnamurthy neither describe nor suggest "a state table maintained by the controlled
computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled computing
device," as claims 1 and 20 recite. As discussed above, Meandzija does not cure this
deficiency. Accordingly, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw
this rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 3 and 4, which
depend from claim 1.
D. The combination of Meandzija and Krishnamurthy neither describes nor suggests "wherein the controlled computing device is an embedded computing device," as claim 3 recites
Dependent claim 3 recites, inter alia, "wherein the controlled computing device is
an embedded computing device." The Office Action relies on Krishnamurthy at Figure 3
and 6:28-39 as disclosing this feature. (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 38.) Patent
owner respectfully disagrees. According to the Office Action, "Krishnamurthy discloses
a controlled computing device as the site server." (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 33
(emphasis added).) The relied-upon portions of Krishnamurthy describe a site server
having a "modem" and "Ethernet 10-SaseT board" and operating "using an I SA-Sus
architecture." These elements, however, do not suggest that Krishnamurthy's site
server itself is an "embedded device." Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that
Krishnamurthy's modem, Ethernet board, and bus architecture constitute embedded
devices (which patent owner does not concede), Krishnamurthy's site server is not an
embedded device, as the Office Action asserts. Accordingly, the relied-upon portions of
the applied references neither describe nor a suggest "wherein the controlled computing
device is an embedded computing device," as claim 3 recites. Patent owner
respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim
3.
X. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Maples
A. Maples does not disclose "a user control point module ... operating to ... subscribe to change notifications of the state table" as claims 1 and 20 recite
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite, inter alia, "a user control point module ...
operating to ... subscribe to change notifications of the state table." The Office Action
relies on Maples at 18:6-30 as disclosing this feature. (Office Action, August 16, 2011,
pp. 23-24 and 28-29.) Patent owner respectfully disagrees that the relied-upon portion
of Maples discloses this feature. Maples at 18:6-30 describes allowing different users to
exert control over different aspects of Maples' synthetic environment imaging system
through Maples' "shared control table." For example, "if the local user 30 would like the
perspective of the shared user 2, the local user requests shared user 2 control of the
point of view, and the shared control table 114 provides the information defining this
point of view to the application state table and application parameter table." (Maples,
16:43-48.) However, Maples' distributed "remote MUSE systems" do not subscribe to
change notifications of Maples' state and parameter tables. Rather, each system
"transmits state values and parameter information only when the state values and
parameter information are changed in value" and "[e]ach time such information is
changed, it is sent to each of the shared environments." (Maples, 15:16-21 (emphasis
added).) Because the state value and parameter information changes are automatically
distributed to the various systems, there is no reason for Maples' systems to "subscribe
to change notifications of the state table" as recited and Maples does not describing a
The Office Action's assertion that Maples at 18:6-30 "teaches that subscription
may be optionally selected by denoting whether the local user is in control of a particular
parameter of if (sic) the state is shared between users" is misplaced. (Office Action,
August 16, 2011, pp. 23-24.) Although a local user may select remote or local control
over a particular parameter of the local system, the local system receives state value
and parameter information changes from the remote systems regardless of the local
user's parameter control selections. For example, if the local user would like the
perspective of the shared user 2, the local system is still notified of any changes to the
perspective information of other shared users. If the local user decides to switch to the
perspective of shared user 1, the local system is. still notified of any changes to the
perspective information of shared user 2. Thus, the local user's selection of remote or
local control over a particular parameter does not affect the local system's receipt of
change notifications of that parameter from remote systems. Accordingly, a local
system need not "subscribe" to change notifications and the relied-upon portions of
Maples do not disclose "a user control point module in the user controller device
operating to ... subscribe to change notifications of the state table," as claims 1 and 20
recite. For at least this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider and withdraw this rejection of independent claims 1 and 20 and dependent
claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 1.
B. Maples does not disclose "a state table maintained by the controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled computing device," as claims 1 and 20 recite
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite, inter alia, "a state table maintained by the
controlled computing device and representing an operational state of the controlled
computing device." The Office Action relies on Maples at 7:47-59 as disclosing this
feature. (Office Action, August 16, 2011, pp. 21-22.) Patent owner respectfully
disagrees that Maples discloses a state table representing an operational state of a
controlled computing device. Maples at 7 :4 7 -59 describes "state and parameter
tables 120, 122 which are a representation of all control states and parameters needed
to control [Maples' MUSE] application" and "contain each control state and parameter
and virtually any input and output devices" and "employs a shared memory to interact
between the user 30 and a selected synthetic environment application." (Office Action,
August 16, 2011, p. 21; Maples 5:60-67.) As is clear form Maples, the local multi
dimensional synthetic environment or MUSE system is a general purpose digital
computer, not an embedded device.
The Jones declaration's assertion that "[c]lient devices in the MUSE environment
can be fully functional computers, standalone systems such as printers, routers, and
hubs, or embedded devices with basic memory and storage systems such as NIC
cards" is not supported by Maples. Maples clearly indicates that "the local multi
dimensional synthetic environment or MUSE system 10 may be implemented with
virtually any general purpose digital computer having multi-processing capabilities and
virtually any input and output devices." (Maples, 5:60-64 (emphasis added).) Although
Maple's system may include input and output devices in addition to "virtually any
general purpose digital computer," these input and output devices do not constitute
Maples' local multi-dimensional synthetic environment or MUSE system. Maples'
MUSE systems, which include a "general purpose digital computer having multi
processing capabilities," are not embedded devices. Maples does not identically
disclose a "controlled computing device [that] is an embedded computing device" as
recited. For at least this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim 3.
XI. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Maples and Bonnell
A. The combination of Maples and Bonnell neither describes nor suggests "a user control point module ... operating to ... subscribe to change notifications of the state table" as claims 1 and 20 recite
Independent claims 1 and 20 recite, inter alia, "a user control point module ...
operating to ... subscribe to change notifications of the state table." As the Office
Action points out, Bonnell does not disclose this feature. (Office Action, August 16,
2011, p. 52.). The Office Action relies on Maples at 18:6-30 as disclosing this feature.
(Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 53.). As discussed above, the relied-upon portions
of Maples do not disclose this feature. Accordingly, for at least reasons similar to those
discussed above, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
withdraw this rejection of claims 1 and 20 and dependent claims 2-4, which depend
from claim 1.
8. The combination of Maples and Bonnell neither describes nor suggests "a user perceptible device control interface for remote user interaction with the controlled computing device to effect a change in the operational state of the controlled computing device represented in the state table," as claim 1 recites
Independent claim 1 recites "a user perceptible device control interface for
remote user interaction with the controlled computing device to effect a change in the
operational state of the controlled computing device represented in the state table." The
Office Action relies on Bonnell at 2:29-51 as disclosing this feature. (Office Action,
August 16, 2011, p. 51.) Patent owner respectfully disagrees that the relied-upon
portion of Bonnell discloses an interface for remote user interaction to effect a change in
the operational state of the controlled computing device represented in the state table.
The relied-upon portions of Bonnell describe "components for implementing [a] manager
software system," which include a graphical user interface "to present visual
representations of objects on the display of [a] network management computer system"
and "coordinate[ ] the representation of pop-up windows for command menus and the
display of requested or monitored data." (Bonnell, 2:29-31.) The graphical user
interface Bonnell describes, however, does not permit remote user interaction to effect a
change in an operational state of a controlled device as recited. Rather, the graphical
user interface of Bonnell permits monitoring of the state or other requested information
of objects present on a computer network, not effecting a change in the state or
information. Thus, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the user interface can
be "incorporated ... within Bonnell to create a simple and easy method for monitoring
devices from a user perspective," as the Office Action asserts, the incorporation only
permits monitoring of devices, not the ability to "effect a change in the operational state
of [a] controlled computing device," as recited. (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 52.)
For at least this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4.
C. The combination of Maples and Bonnell neither describes nor suggests "a user perceptible device control interface for remote user interaction with the controlled computing device and communicating with the controlled computing device via a device control protocol to effect remote operational control of the controlled computing device," as claim 20 recites
Independent claim 20 .recites "a user perceptible device control interface for
remote user interaction with the controlled computing device and communicating with
the controlled computing device via a device control protocol to effect remote
operational control of the controlled computing device." The Office Action relies on
Bonnell at 2:29-51 as disclosing this feature. (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 59.)
As discussed above, the relied-upon portions of Bonnell describe a graphical user
interface that permits monitoring of the state or other requested information of objects
present on a computer network, not effecting a change in the state or information.
Thus, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the user interface can be
"incorporated ... within Bonnell to create a simple and easy method for monitoring
devices from a user perspective," as the Office Action asserts, the incorporation only
permits monitoring of devices, not the ability to "effect a change in the operational state
of [a] controlled computing device," as recited. (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 59.)
For at least this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider and withdraw this rejection of claim 20.
D. The combination of Maples and Bonnell neither describes nor suggests "the state table having a plurality of entries, wherein each entry of the state table comprises at least a variable identifier, a type and a current value," "at least one entry of the state table being of a type of data buffer, and containing a file as its current value," or "whereby a change to the current value of said at least one entry effects a file transfer from the controlled device to said any subscribing user control device," as claim 2 recites
Dependent claim 2 recites, inter alia, "the state table having a plurality of entries,
wherein each entry of the state table comprises at least a variable identifier, a type and
a current value." The Office Action relies on Bonnell at 9:61-10:4 and Figure 14 as
disclosing this feature. Patent owner respectfully disagrees that the relied-upon portion
of Bonnell discloses an entry comprising "a type." Bonnell at 9:61-10:4 and Figure 14
describes and illustrates a "data repository" for "storing historical application parameter
values and related information." The data repository includes three fields: "parameter
identification field," "[m]easurement time field," and "[v]alue field." (Bonnell, 9:66-10:5.)
The parameter identification field "contains a unique identifier" that includes an
"associated application name, instance name and parameter name." (9:66-10:2.)
According to the Office Action, the parameter name corresponds to the recited "type."
(Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 55.) Bonnell's "parameter name," however, is not a
type. Rather, Bonnell's parameter name represents the name of a parameter and is a
portion of a unique identifier for a particular parameter. Bonnell provides no indication
that the name of a parameter is equivalent to that parameter's "type." In other words,
parameters of the same type may have different names and vice versa. Accordingly,
the relied-upon portion of Bonnell neither describes nor suggests a "state table having a
plurality of entries, wherein each entry of the state table comprises at least a variable
identifier, a type and a current value," as claim 2 recites. For at least this reason, patent
owner respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw this rejection of
claim 2.
Dependent claim 2 recites, inter alia, "at least one entry of the state table being of
a type of data buffer, and containing a file as its current value." The Office Action relies
E. The combination of Maples and Bonnell neither describes nor suggests "wherein the controlled computing device is an embedded computing device," as claim 3 recites
Dependent claim 3 recites "wherein the controlled computing device is an
embedded computing device." The Office Action relies on Bonnell at 16:61-65 as
disclosing this feature, asserting that Bonnell's "agent system comprises a RAM and a
non-volatile data storage device." (Office Action, August 16, 2011, p. 56.) Although
Bonnell's agent comprises "a RAM" and "non-volatile data storage service," Bonnell's
agent system need not be an "embedded device." Rather, the "agent system" may
constitute a general purpose computing device that is not an embedded device. The
relied-upon portions of Bonnell simply do not describe or suggest a controlled
computing device that "is an embedded computing device," as claim 3 recites. For at
least this reason, patent owner respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and
withdraw this rejection of claim 2.
XI I. Conclusion
The patent owner believes no fee is due with this response. However, if a fee is
due, please charge our Deposit Account No. 50-0665, under Order No. 418278883US1