D906 Reexam

REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam

Commissioner for Patents
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Attorney Docket No.: 409268US91 RX
Date: December31,2012
1 . This is a request for ex parte reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.510 of patent number D669,906
~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - -
issued October 30, 2012 The request is made by:
D patent owner. third party requester.
2 . The name and address of the person requesting reexamination is:
Scott A. McKeown
Obion Spivak
1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
3 . Credit card payment is being made online (if electronically filed), or is attached hereto (if paper filed), in the amount
of $17.750 to cover the reexamination fee, 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1 );
4 . Any refund should be made by Credit to Deposit Account No. 15-0030
---------------------
37 CFR 1.26(c). If payment is made by credit card, refund must be to credit card account.
5 . A copy of the patent to be reexamined having a double column format on one side of a separate paper is enclosed.
37 CFR 1.510(b)(4)
6. D CD-ROM or CD-R in duplicate, Computer Program (Appendix) or large table
D Landscape Table on CD
7. D Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission
If applicable, items a. - c. are required.
a. D Computer readable Form (CRF)
b. Specification Sequence Listing on:
i. D CD-ROM (2 copies) or CD-R (2 copies); or
ii. D paper
c. D Statements verifying identity of above copies
8 . A copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction or reexamination certificate issued in the patent is included.
9. Reexamination of claim( s) _C=Ia::.:im.:.:....:o:.:.f-=U:.:.. S=.:.....P:_a=.t:.=ec:.:n-=-t=D-=6-=6=-9'-", 9-=0-=6 _________________________ is requested.
10 . A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon is submitted herewith including a listing thereof on
Form PTO/SB/08, PT0-1449, or equivalent.
11 . An English language translation of all necessary and pertinent non-English language patents and/or printed
publications is included.
Page 1 of 2
12. The attached detailed request includes at least the following items:
a. A statement identifying each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed
publications. 37 CFR 1.51 O(b)(1)
b. An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed explanation of the
pertinency and manner of applying the cited art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.
37 CFR 1.51 O(b)(2)
13 .
D
A proposed amendment is included (only where the patent owner is the requester). 37 CFR 1.510(e)
14.

a. It is certified that a copy of this request (if filed by other than the patent owner) has been served in its entirely
on the patent owner as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(c).
The name and address of the party served and the date of service are:
STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Date of Service: December 31, 2012 ; or
Db. A duplicate copy is enclosed since service on patent owner was not possible.
15. Correspondence Address: Direct all communication about the reexamination to:
The address associated with Customer Number:
I
22850
I
16.
D
The patent is currently the subject of the following concurrent proceeding(s):
D
a. Copending reissue Application No.
D
b. Copending reexamination Control No.
D
c. Copending Interference No.
D
d. Copending litigation styled:
/Scott A. McKeown/ December 31, 2012
Authorized Signature Date
Scott A. McKeown 42,866 D For Patent Owner Requester
Typed/Printed Name Registration No.
For Third Party Requester
-
10/08
Page 2 of 2
SHEET OF
Form PTO 1449 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ATIY DOCKET NO. SERIAL NO.
(Modified) PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
409268US91RX Unassigned
APPLICANT
LIST OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Elizabeth Caroline CRANFILL, et al.
FILING DATE GROUP
Herewith Unassigned
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
EXAMINER DOCUMENT
DATE NAME CLASS
SUB FILING DATE
INITIAL NUMBER CLASS IF APPROPRIATE
AA D669,906 10/30/12 Cranfill, et al.
AB 2006/0066510 3/30/06 Takahashi
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT
DATE COUNTRY
TRANSLATION
NUMBER
YES NO
AO
AP
AQ
AR
AS
AT
AU
AV
OTHER REFERENCES (Including Author, Title, Date, Pertinent Pages, etc.)
AW Exhibit B- Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. D669,906
Exhibit C - Gorenje Kitchen 2008 Online Catalog
AX (http ://web. archive. org/web/20090301 042519/http:/page-flip. com/new-demos/03-kitch en-g oren je-2008/ind ex. html)
Exhibit E - Creating and Reading Realistic Electronic Books by Liesaputra et al.
AY (Published in the February 2009 edition of Computer)
Exhibit F - Declaration of Ms. Corrine Cunningham
AZ
D Additional References sheet(s) attached
Examiner Date Considered
*Examiner: Initial if reference is considered, whether or not citation is in confonnance with MPEP 609; Draw line through citation if not in
confonnance and not considered. Include copy of this form with next communication to applicant.
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
U.S. Patent No. D669,906
Issued: October 30, 2012
Filed: May 5, 2011
For: Display Screen Portion with
Animated Graphical User Interface
Attorney Docket No.: 409268US

REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF
U.S. PATENT NO. D669,906
Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-14 50
Dear Commissioner:
Pursuant to the provisions of35 U.S.C. 302 and 37 C.F.R. 1.510 et seq., the
undersigned, on behalf of an anonymous Requester, requests ex parte patent reexamination of
the claim of U.S. Design Patent No. D669,906 ("'906 patent," Exhibit A).
The '906 patent identifies Apple, Inc. ("Apple" or "Patent Owner") as the assignee of the
'906 patent. An assignment search indicates that the application for the '906 patent was assigned
to the patent owner by an assignment recorded at Reel 027879, Frame 0216. No later
assignments have been found.
Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. D669,906
Ex Parte Patent Reexamination Filing Requirements
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(1), statements pointing out at least one substantial new
question of patentability based on material, non-cumulative prior art patents and printed
publications for the claim of the '906 patent are provided in Section IV of this Request. These
prior art references were not discussed on the record, or in any way applied to reject the claim of
the '906 patent during prosecution.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(2), reexamination ofthe '906 patent is requested, and a
detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to the claim for
which reexamination is requested is provided in Section V of this Request.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b )(3), copies of every patent or printed publication relied
upon or referred to in the statement pointing out each substantial new question of patentability or
in the detailed explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art are
provided as Exhibits C-F of this Request.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(4), a copy ofthe '906 patent is provided as Exhibit A of
this Request along with a copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction, or reexamination
certificate issued in the patent .
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(5), the attached Certificate of Service indicates that a
copy of this Request, in its entirety, has been served in its entirety on Patent Owner at the
following address of the attorney of record for Patent Owner, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
1.33(c):
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Also submitted herewith is the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.20(c)(1).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.510(b)(6), Requester hereby certifies that neither the statutory
estoppel provisions of35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) nor 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) prohibit Requester from
filing this ex parte patent reexamination request.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Requirements .......................................................................... ii
Table of Exhibits ...................................................................................................................... iv
I. CITATION OF PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
RELIED UPON IN REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION .......................................... 1
II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
III. OVERVIEW OF THE '906 PATENT .......................................................................... .2
A. Background of the '906 Patent ......................................................................... .2
B. Prosecution History of the '906 Patent .............................................................. 3
IV. STATEMENT POINTING OUT EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF
PATENTABILITY FOR THE CHALLENGED CLAIM ............................................. 3
A. Subject Matter, Which if Taught by Prior Art Patents or Printed
Publications, Raises a Significant New Question of Patentability for
the Challenged Claim ......................................................................................... 3
B. Law of Obviousness for Design Patents ........................................................... .4
C. Liesaputra Raises a Substantial New Question of Patentability
for the Claim of the '906 Patent. ....................................................................... .4
D. Gorenje Raises a Substantial New Question of Patentability
for the Claim of the '906 Patent. ........................................................................ 6
V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCE AND MANNER OF
APPLYING THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES TO THE CLAIM FOR
WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED ......................................................... 10
A. Liesaputra In View of Takahashi Renders the Claim of
the '906 Patent Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) ................................ .10
B. Gorenje In View of Takahashi and Liesaputra Renders
the Claim ofthe '906 Patent Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) ............ 14
VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 20
111
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A U.S. Patent No. D669,906 (for reexamination)
Exhibit B Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. D669,906
Exhibit C Gorenje Kitchen 2008 Online Catalog
Exhibit D U.S. Publication No. 2006/0066510 to Takahashi
Exhibit E Creating and Reading Realistic Electronic Books by Liesaputra et al.
Exhibit F Declaration ofMs. Corrine M. Cunningham
lV
I. CITATION OF PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
RELIED UPON IN REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION
Reexamination of the claim of the '906 patent is requested in view of the following prior
art patents and printed publications:
Creating and Reading Realistic Electronic Books by Liesaputra et al. ("Liesaputra") is
attached hereto as Exhibit E. Liesaputra was published in the February 2009 edition of
Computer, and is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
U.S. Publication No. 2006/0066510 to Takahashi ("Takahashi") is attached hereto as
Exhibit D. Takahashi was filed on September 29, 2005, was published on March 30, 2006 and is
available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Takahashi was not cited or discussed during the
prosecution of the '906 patent.
Gorenje Kitchen 2008 online catalog ("Gorenje"), which is available at
http:/ /web.archive.org/web/2009030 1 042519/http:/page-flip.com/new-demos/03-kitchen-
gorenje-2008/index.html, and screen shots ofGorenje are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Gorenje
was publicly available by at least March 1, 2009.
1
II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Design patents are typically claimed as shown in drawings, and claim construction must
be adapted to a pictorial setting. Crocs v. ITC, 598. F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus an
illustration depicts a design better "than it could be by any description and a description would
probably not be intelligible without the illustration." Id., citing Dobson v. Doman, 118 U.S. 10,
14 (1886). "[A]s a rule, the illustration in the drawing views is its own best description." MPEP
1503.01 II.
Full lines in the drawing show the claimed design. MPEP 1503.01 III. Structure that is
not part of the claimed design, but is considered necessary to show the environment in which the
design is associated, may be represented in the drawing by broken lines. This includes any
portion of an article in which the design is embodied or applied to that is not considered part of
the claimed design. In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 204 USPQ 988 (CCPA 1980).
1
See Section IV. D; Exhibit F Declaration of Corrine M. Cunningham
1
III. OVERVIEW OF THE '906 PATENT
A. The '906 Patent
The '906 patent claims "[t]he ornamental design for a display screen or portion thereof
with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described." The '906 patent includes the
following three figures:

'
......
The description in the '906 patent includes the following statement: [t]he appearance of
the animated images sequentially transitions between the images shown in FIGS. 1-3. The
process or period in which one image transitions to another forms no part of the claimed design.
2
The dashed lines form no part of the claimed design. Thus, as shown in the annotations
above, the only claimed features are the top page, the page being turned, the next page being
revealed, and stack of pages behind the top and next pages, and the horizontal lines above and
below the pages.
The above annotates also identify icons in the figures of the '906 patent. These icons
include a magnifying glass and certain oblong boxes. It is well know in the art of GUI design
that the magnifying glass icon represents the functional feature of zooming in and out on the
display. It is also well known in the art to use oblong, VCR style controls for functional features
such as page forward and page backward. In fact, these same icons are used in the tool bar (31)
shown in Figure 4 of Takahashi. As these icons are functional, they should not be given any
patentable weight. Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F. 3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
However, even if these icons are found to be ornamental, as discussed below, they do not
patentably distinguish over the applied references.
B. Prosecution History of the '906 Patent
The prosecution history of the '906 patent did not include any rejections based on prior
art. The Office issued a Notice of Allowance on April2, 2012. No reasons for allowance were
provided by the Office. On June 1, 2012, a Continued Prosecution Application was filed with a
preliminary amendment and Information Disclosure Statement. The Office issued a Notice of
Allowance on June 21, 2012. Again, no reasons for allowance were provided by the Office.
The '906 patent issued on October 30, 2012.
IV. STATEMENT POINTING OUT EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF
PATENTABILITY FOR THE CHALLENGED CLAIM
A. Subject Matter, Which if Taught by Prior Art Patents or
Printed Publications, Raises a Significant New Question of
Patentability for the Challenged Claim
The references relied upon below were not discussed on the record during prosecution of
the '906 patent. Additionally, as outlined below, these references are not cumulative to
ornamental teachings discussed on the record; indeed, no such record exists. Accordingly, the
references applied herein, as discussed next, present new, non-cumulative teachings that
demonstrate the unpatentability of the '906 patent.
3
B. The Law of Obviousness For Design Patents
The fact finder employs a two step process in making the determination of obviousness
for a design patent.
2
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir.
2012); Durling, 101 F.3d at 103, distinguished on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v.
Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008). First, "one must find a single reference, 'a
something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed
design."' Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (quoting In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391 (CCPA 1982).
Second, "other references may be used to modify [the primary reference] to create a design that
has the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design." Durling, 101 F.3d at 103.
Without a primary reference having the same overall visual impression as the claimed design,
there can be no finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See Apple, 678 F.3d at 1331-
32.
If a single reference is identified (or a hypothetical piece of art is created through
combination by an ordinary designer), it must then be analyzed from the point of view of the
ordinary observer. Int'l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1240-41
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original). The ordinary observer test looks at whether the primary
or hypothetical piece of combined prior art and the claimed design are "substantially the same"
such that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as an ordinary observer usually gives,
would be deceived into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. See Titan Tire Corp. v. Case
NewHolland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
C. Liesaputra Raises a Substantial New Question of Patentability for the Claim
of the '906 Patent
Liesaputra was published in February of2009, and is available as prior art under 35
U.S.C. 102(b). Liesaputra was not cited or discussed during the prosecution ofthe '906 patent.
Liesaputra raises a substantial new question of patentability for the claim of the '906 patent.
2
These steps are required in order to follow the Supreme Court's guidance in Graham. 383 U.S. at 17-18 ("the
scope and content of the prior art are ... determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
are ... ascertained").
4
,,.; ............. : ... : ...-.......:
''' ;.,..
... .....::.
... _ ..
,... _:t,. -:--'''
.. .. .......
'c
. , ................., .. , .........
... ...
... .......

....

...
,-.-._, ..
: .. ;.
Liesaputra discloses a display screen showing an animated GUI having the appearance of
an open electronic book with a page being turned. The GUI also presents the image on the
display screen as a book. This is because the stacked pages visible behind the right edge of the
right facing page are stacked in an angular fashion and the stacked pages visible behind the left
edge of the left facing page are stacked in an angular fashion, in addition a border frames the
stacked pages as would a book cover. Liesaputra describes that readers of their electronic book
can grab the page anywhere along the top, right, or bottom edge by pointing there and pressing
the mouse button. Then, the reader moves the mouse and the illustrated page fold follows the
direction of mouse movement. Thus, the reader of an electronic book described by Liesaputra
can control how the pages of the animated book are illustrated during the page tum operation.
Liesaputra further describes that their electronic book simulates the appearance of a real
book by making the folded back area of the turned page smaller than the revealed area of the
page beneath the page being turned. The geometry of such a page tum is demonstrated in the
images from Liesaputra below. Further, as can be seen above, the display screen also includes
lCOnS.
5
Liesaputra also simulates the appearance of a real book with the curvature of the page
being turned and by using shading to indicate a three-dimensional effect of the page being
turned.
Thus, the overall appearance of the GUI of Liesaputra is a book that, upon virtual page
turning folds the page back toward the viewer in a graduated fashion. This is basically the same
as the overall appearance of the design claimed in the '906 patent. Additionally, cropping off the
top of the page being turned would also have been obvious to a design of ordinary skill in the art
to prevent the page from obscuring other items on the display screen, such as the icons
representing other features (save, print, etc.) positioned above the book, as evidenced by
Takahashi.
A reasonable examiner would consider Liesaputra important in deciding whether the
claim of the '906 patent is patentable. As such, Liesaputra raises a substantial new question of
patentability for the claim of the '906 patent. MPEP 2242.
D. Gorenje Raises a Substantial New Question of Patentability for the Claim of
the '906 Patent
Gorenje was published at least by March 1, 2009. An electronic publication, including an
on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a "printed publication" within the
meaning of35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons
concerned with the art to which the document relates. MPEP 2128. In Voter Verified, Inc. v.
Premier Election Solutions, Inc., the appellate court upheld the district court's finding that an
article obtained from an online periodical concerned with computer safety and security qualified
as prior art "printed publication," where the article was made available publicly via the
periodical's Internet website before the critical date and was easily searchable using keywords,
the online periodical was well-known to the relevant community, and submissions for
6
publication in periodical were treated by that community as public disclosures. 2012 WL
5382734 at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The existence of Gorenje as a publically accessible document is demonstrated by the
archived content ofthe www.page-flip.com website by at least March 1, 2009 (as archived by
Waybackmacine.com, a well established Internet Archive). To this end the declaration of Ms.
Corrine M. Cunningham (Exhibit F) authenticating the screen shot contents of Exhibit Cas being
those archived by the "Wayback Machine" Internet Archive on March 1, 2009. Although this
additional evidence is unnecessary, it at least cooroborates the existence of Gorenje on the
Internet by at least March, 1, 2009. See Electronic Controlled Systems v. Winegard Co. PTAB
(2012-008614).
Further, the Patent Owner's filing of similar materials during the prosecution of the '906
patent further corroborate the date eligibility of these materials as prior art.
"Flipping Book Publisher 2.2 Demonstrations" and "Flipping Book Publisher 2.0" were
cited as references NPL4 and NPL5 on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed June 1,
2012. NPL4 lists "Gorenje Kitchens Brochure" as one of the demonstrations. While it is true
that 37 C.F.R. 1.97(h) makes clear that the filing of an information disclosure statement shall not
be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to
be, material to patentability, the materials were submitted on a form that requires date eligibility.
As to the content and materiality of these IDS materials, the IDS materials were just
screen shots submitted without any explanation of relevance or animated operation. Not
surprisingly, there is no evidence that the Examiner reviewed the interactive demonstrations,
which allow the user to observe the flipped pages in the same manner as that claimed by the '906
patent. Thus, there is no indication that the interactive demonstrations, including the Gorenje
Kitchens Brochure, were ever considered during the prosecution of the '906 patent.
Gorenje was available at least as ofMarch 1, 2009 on www.page-flip.com, which was a
publicly accessible website and was easily searchable using keywords, it qualifies as a "printed
publication." Accordingly, Gorenje is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Gorenje
raises a substantial new question of patentability for the claim of the '906 patent, as discussed
next.
7
Gorenje illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) having the animated appearance of an
electronic book in which virtual pages are "flipped" in the manner depicted above. The user
observes the above animated GUI upon virtually turning a page by electronic control of the
Gorenje application. The user may adjust the amount of the tum of the page and the angle at
which the page is turned by the degree of control actuation. Gorenje simulates the appearance of
a real book with the curvature of the page being turned and by using shading to indicate a three-
dimensional effect of the page being turned.
As can be appreciated by a designer of ordinary skill in the art, the overall appearance of
Gorenje is a GUI in which an open book with a page being folded back and turned in a graduated
fashion is displayed. This visual design is basically the same as the overall appearance of the
page flip design claimed in the '906 patent (below).
8
FIG. i
FIG.2
More particularly, Figs. 1-3 of the '906 patent show, in animated sequence, an open book
with a page having the alleged ornamental characteristics of a graduated, folded back, page tum.
The page in Figs. 1-3 of the '906 patent is being turned at substantially identical angles to that of
the GUI of Gorenje; any difference in angle would be obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in
9
the art as evidenced by Liesaputra. Although stacks of additional pages in Gorenje are not
visible on the right side of the right facing page and the left side of the left facing page, such a
modification would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art in view of
Liesaputra, which shows an angular stack of pages visible behind the right edge of the right
facing page and another stack visible behind the left edge of the left facing page, in addition to a
horizontal boarder above and below the pages. Additionally, cropping off the top of the page
being turned would also have been obvious to a design of ordinary skill in the art to prevent the
page from obscuring other items on the display screen, such as the icons representing other
features (save, print, etc.) positioned above the book, as evidenced by Takahashi. Further,
adding icons would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art as both Liesaputra
and Takahashi include substantially the same icons as the '906 patent. Accordingly, Gorenje
provides a new and non-cumulative ornamental teaching of an animated graphical user interface
having basically the same appearance as that of the claimed design of the '906 patent.
As a reasonable examiner would consider Gorenje important in deciding whether the
claim ofthe '906 patent is patentable, Gorenje raises a substantial new question of patentability
for the claim of the '906 patent. MPEP 2242.
V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE PERTINENCE AND MANNER OF
APPLYING THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES TO THE CLAIM FOR
WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED
In accordance with 3 7 C.F .R. 1.51 O(b )(2), Requester provides the following detailed
explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to the claim of the '906 patent,
for which reexamination is requested.
A. Liesaputra In View of Takahashi Renders the Claim
of the '906 Patent Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Liesaputra and Takahashi are prior art against the '906 patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
As shown by the detailed analysis below, Liesaputra is a suitable primary reference that has an
appearance basically the same as the claimed design. Further, any differences between the
claimed design and Liesaputra can be found in the secondary reference (Takahashi), which is so
related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in Takahashi would suggest
the application of those features to Liesaputra. The modified reference is substantially the same
10
as the claimed design under the ordinary observer test. Therefore, the claim of the '906 patent is
invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liesaputra in view of Takahashi.

....:.
..

. .. ...... ,...,_,
.... ........
Liesaputra discloses a display screen showing an animated GUI having the appearance of
an open electronic book with a page being turned. The GUI also presents the image on the
display screen as a book. This is because the stacked pages visible behind the right edge of the
right facing page are stacked in an angular fashion and the stacked pages visible behind the left
edge of the left facing page are stacked in an angular fashion, in addition a border frames the
stacked pages as would a book cover. Liesaputra describes that readers of their electronic book
can grab the page anywhere along the top, right, or bottom edge by pointing there and pressing
the mouse button. Then, the reader moves the mouse and the illustrated page fold follows the
direction of mouse movement. Thus, the reader of an electronic book described by Liesaputra
can control how the pages of the animated book are illustrated during the page tum operation.
Liesaputra further describes that their electronic book simulates the appearance of a real
book by making the folded back area of the turned page smaller than the revealed area of the
page beneath the page being turned. The geometry of such a page tum is demonstrated in the
11
images from Liesaputra below. Further, as can be seen above, the display screen also includes
icons, including an icon having the appearance of a magnifying glass.
Liesaputra also simulates the appearance of a real book with the curvature of the page
being turned and by using shading to indicate a three-dimensional effect of the page being
turned.
Thus, the overall appearance of the GUI of Liesaputra is a book that, upon virtual page
turning folds the page back toward the viewer in a graduated fashion. This is basically the same
as the overall appearance of the design claimed in the '906 patent.
As Liesaputra is a reference in existence with basically the same visual appearance as the
claimed design of the '906 patent, Liesaputra is a proper primary reference to show prima facie
obviousness. Additionally, Takahashi can be relied on to cure any deficiencies ofLiesaputra.
Although the page being turned in Liesaputra has a similar appearance to the page being turned
in the figures of the '906 patent, the top part of the page being turned in the '906 patent does not
extend above a horizontal line above the page. This feature is taught in Takahashi, as evidenced
by the annotated version of Fig. 6 below.
12
Fl G. 6
. ..-ll
f
The circled portion of the electronic book in Fig. 6 of Takahashi shows that the page
being turned does not extend above a horizontal line above the page. Thus, this portion of the
page being turned is cut off just like the '906 patent. It would have been obvious to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art to modifY Liesaputra to crop off the top of the page being turned as in
Takahashi to prevent the page from obscuring other items on the display screen, such as the
icons representing other features (save, print, etc.) positioned above the book in Takahashi.
Further, it would have been obvious to modifY Liesaputra to position icons within the electronic
book, as evidenced by the tabs of Takahashi. This change would have been obvious to a
designer of ordinary skill in the art in order to allow the reader to more easily read and navigate
through the electronic book. This combination of these features from Takahashi with Liesaputra
is proper since Takahashi also shows a GUI in which an open book with a page being folded
back and turned in a graduated fashion is displayed. Thus, Takahashi is so related to Liesaputra
that these features of Takahashi would suggest their application in Liesaputra to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art.
As explained above, Liesaputra has basically the same overall visual appearance as the
claimed design. The minor differences in their appearance are remedied by Takahashi. These
changes would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the
13
properly modified combination ofLiesaputra in view of Takahashi has substantially the same
overall visual appearance as the claimed design of the '906 patent. Both the modified
combination of references and the claimed design have an overall visual appearance of a GUI in
which an open book with a page being folded back and turned in a graduated fashion is
displayed. The turned page of the book of the modified combination of references would be
turned at the same angle, with the same ratio of creased page to revealed page, as that of the
claimed design. Additionally, the top of the turned page would not extend above a horizontal
line above the pages in both the modified combination and the claimed design. Further, the rest
of the book, including the background pages on the right and left sides of the top pages of the
image, as well as the horizontal lines above and below the pages have the same appearance as the
claimed design. The book would also includes icons substantially the same as those in the '906
patent..
Accordingly, an ordinary observer, giving such attention as an ordinary observer usually
gives, would be deceived into purchasing one supposing it to be the other as both the modified
combination and the claimed design have substantially the same overall visual appearance.
* * *
Accordingly, Liesaputra in view of Takahashi discloses every limitation of the claimed
design in the '906 patent. Therefore, the claim of the '906 patent is invalid as being unpatentable
over Liesaputra in view of Takahashi under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
B. Gorenje In View of Takahashi and Liesaputra Renders
the Claim of the '906 Patent Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
As discussed above, Gorenje, Takahashi, and Liesaputra are prior art against the '906
patent under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). As shown by the detailed analysis below, Gorenje is a suitable
primary reference that has an appearance basically the same as the claimed design. Further, any
differences between the claimed design and Gorenje can be found in the secondary references
(Takahashi and Liesaputra), which are so related that the appearance of certain ornamental
features in Takahashi and Liesaputra would suggest the application of those features to Gorenje.
The modified reference is substantially the same as the claimed design under the ordinary
observer test. Therefore, the claim of the '906 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gorenje in view of Takahashi and Liesaputra.
14
Gorenje discloses a display screen showing a user interface having the appearance of an
electronic book, as shown in the images below.
Gorenje illustrates a graphical user interface (GUI) having the animated appearance of an
electronic book in which virtual pages are "flipped" in the manner depicted above. The user
observes the above animated GUI upon virtually turning a page by electronic control of the
Gorenje application. The user may adjust the amount of the tum of the page and the angle at
which the page is turned by the degree of control actuation. Gorenje simulates the appearance of
a real book with the curvature of the page being turned and by using shading to indicate a three-
dimensional effect of the page being turned.
As can be appreciated by a designer of ordinary skill in the art, the overall appearance of
Gorenje is a GUI in which an open book with a page being folded back and turned in a graduated
fashion is displayed. This visual design is basically the same as the overall appearance of the
page flip design claimed in the '906 patent (below).
15
FIG. i
FIG.2
More particularly, Figs. 1-3 of the '906 patent show, in animated sequence, an open book
with a page having the alleged ornamental characteristics of a graduated, folded back, page tum.
As Gorenje is a reference in existence with basically the same visual appearance as the
claimed design of the '906 patent, Gorenje is a proper primary reference to show prima facie
16
obviousness. Additionally, Takahashi and Liesaputra can be relied on to cure any deficiencies of
Gorenje. Although the page being turned in Gorenje has a similar appearance to the page being
turned in the figures of the '906 patent, the top part of the page being turned in the '906 patent
does not extend above a horizontal line above the page. This feature is taught in Takahashi, as
evidenced by the annotated version of Fig. 6 below.
Fl G. 6
The circled portion of the electronic book in Fig. 6 of Takahashi shows that the page
being turned does not extend above a horizontal line above the page. Thus, this portion of the
page being turned is cut off just like the '906 patent. It would have been obvious to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Gorenje to crop off the top of the page being turned as in
Takahashi to prevent the page from obscuring other items on the display screen, such as the
icons representing other features (save, print, etc.) positioned above the book in Takahashi. This
combination is proper since Takahashi also shows a GUI in which an open book with a page
being folded back and turned in a graduated fashion is displayed. Thus, Takahashi is so related
to Gorenje that this feature of Takahashi would suggest its application in Gorenje to a designer of
ordinary skill in the art.
The amount of the creased area of the page being turned is close to the amount of the
revealed area of the next page in Gorenje. In the '906 patent, the amount of the creased area of
17
the page being turned is somewhat smaller than the amount of the revealed area of the next page.
However, any difference in appearance would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill
in the art, as evidenced by Liesaputra. Specifically, Liesaputra discloses, in the last paragraph of
the left column on page 76 and extending onto the right column, that the creased area (2 in the
image below) of the page being turned should be smaller than the revealed area (3) of the next
page to simulate a real page being turned. Liesaputra explains how to assign a value to one of
the variables described therein to adjust the ratio of creased area to revealed area. Accordingly,
Liesaputra discloses to a designer of ordinary skill in the art how to tum a page with the creased
page and the revealed page having the same appearance as the creased page and the revealed
page in the '906 patent.
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gorenje to
include the amount of the creased page relative to the reeled pages as taught by Liesaputra in
order to simulate the page tum of a real book. This combination is proper since Liesaputra also
discloses a GUI in which an open book with a page being folded back and turned in a graduated
fashion is displayed. Thus, Liesaputra is so related to Gorenje that this feature ofLiesaputra
would suggest its application in Gorenje to a designer of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, both Liesaputra and Takahashi disclose icons in and around the electronic book.
Both references include a magnifYing glass icon. Additionally, Takahashi discloses rectangular
tab icons in the page stacks. As evidenced by Liesaputra and Takahashi, icons are well known to
a designer of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to add icons to Gorenje to
allow a user to have more options to easily read and navigate through the book. As noted above,
both Liesaputra and Takahashi are so related to Gorenje that this feature ofLiesaputra and
Takahashi would suggest its application in Gorenje to a designer of ordinary skill in the art.
18
As explained above, Gorenje has basically the same overall visual appearance as the
claimed design. The minor differences in their appearance are remedied by Takahashi and
Liesaputra. These changes would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art.
Both the modified combination of references and the claimed design have an overall visual
appearance of a GUI in which an open book with a page being folded back and turned in a
graduated fashion is displayed. The turned page of the book of the modified combination of
references would be turned at the same angle, with the same ratio of creased area to revealed
area, as that of the claimed design. Additionally, the top of the page being turned would not
extend above a horizontal line above the pages in both the modified combination and the claimed
design. Further, the rest of the book, including the background pages on the right side of the top
right page and the background pages on the left side of the top left page, as well as the horizontal
lines above and below the pages have the same appearance as the claimed design. The book
would also includes icons substantially the same as those in the '906 patent. Thus, the properly
modified combination of Gorenj e in view of Takahashi and Liesaputra has substantially the same
overall visual appearance as the claimed design of the '906 patent.
Accordingly, an ordinary observer, giving such attention as an ordinary observer usually
gives, would be deceived into purchasing one supposing it to be the other as both the modified
combination and the claimed design have substantially the same overall visual appearance.
* * *
Accordingly, Gorenje in view of Takahashi and Liesaputra discloses every limitation of
the claimed design in the '906 patent. Therefore, the claim of the '906 patent is invalid as being
unpatentable over Gorenje in view of Takahashi and Liesaputra under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
19
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the accompanying references show that there exists at least one
substantial new question of patentability as to the claim of the '906 patent. For the reasons set
forth in this Request, it is respectfully requested that the ex parte reexamination of the '906
patent be ordered.
Customer Number
22850
Tel: (703) 413-3000
Fax: (703) 413 -2220
(OSMMN 08/07)
Respectfully submitted,
By /Scott A. McKeown/
Scott A. McKeown
Registration No. 42,866
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
20
111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
c12) United States Design Patent
Cranfill et al.
(54) DISPLAY SCREEN PORTION WITH
ANIMATED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
(75) Inventors: Elizabeth Caroline Cranfill, San
Francisco, CA (US); Mikio Inose,
Cupertino, CA (US); Stephen 0.
Lemay, San Francisco, CA (US)
(73) Assignee: Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA (US)
(**) Term: 14 Years
(21) Appl. No.: 29/391,281
(22) Filed: MayS, 2011
(63)
(51)
(52)
(58)
(56)
Related U.S. Application Data
Continuation of application No. 29/366,479, filed on
Jul. 26, 2010.
LOC (9) Cl. .................................................. 14-04
U.S. Cl. ...................................................... Dl4/485
Field of Classification Search ......... D14/485-495;
715/700, 703, 704, 705, 706, 715, 716, 718,
715/719, 723, 727, 730, 732, 748, 752, 753,
715/756, 758, 761, 762, 763, 764, 768, 769,
715/771,772,773,777,779,780,781,861,
715/864,972,975,977,793,795,799,800,
715/808,809,810,825,828,834,835,838,
715/841, 842, 843, 846, 847; 705/319; 345/14.03,
345/14.04, 901
See application file for complete search history.
References Cited
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
805,678 A
3,877,729 A
4,420,112 A
4,610,392 A
5,123,676 A
5,237,651 A
5,463,725 A *
1111905 Smith
4/1975 Friedman
12/1983 Cline
9/1986 DaRosa
6/1992 Donnelly et al.
8/1993 Randall
10/1995 Henckel eta!. ............... 715/776
EM
USOOD669906S
(10) Patent No.: US D669,906 S
** Oct. 30, 2012 (45) Date of Patent:
5,499,330 A
D384,050 s
D398,299 s
D415,136 S
D422,582 S
3/1996 Lucas et a!.
9/1997 Kodosky
9/1998 Ballay eta!.
10/1999 Newton eta!.
4/2000 Bright et al.
(Continued)
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
001594771-0004 * 7/2009
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Co-pending Application, U.S. Appl. No. 29/354,942, Inventors
Anzures eta!., filed Jan. 29, 2010 (Not Published).
(Continued)
Primary Examiner- Angela J Lee
(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein
& Fox PLLC
(57) CLAIM
The ornamental design for a display screen or portion thereof
with animated graphical user interface, as shown and
described.
DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a front view of a display screen or portion thereof
with animated graphical user interface showing a first image
in the sequence showing our new design;
FIG. 2 is a second image thereof; and,
FIG. 3 is a third image thereof.
The broken lines in the Figures show portions of a display
screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user inter-
face and portions of the display screen or portion thereof
which form no part of the claimed design.
The appearance of the animated images sequentially transi-
tions between the images shown in FIGS. 1-3. The process or
period in which one image transitions to another forms no part
of the claimed design.
1 Claim, 3 Drawing Sheets
US D669,906 S
Page 2
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 7,898,541 B2 *
D635,989 S
D638,027 S *
D638,439 S *
D647,911 S
3/2011 Hong eta!. ................... 345/473
4/2000
4/2001
10/2001
112002
212002
8/2004
1112004
8/2005
112006
3/2006
8/2006
9/2006
112007
112007
1112007
1112007
12/2007
112008
3/2008
5/2008
10/2008
5/2009
8/2009
9/2009
112010
2/2010
2/2010
4/2010
D422,583 S
6,217,443 B1
6,297,824 B1 *
D453,166 S
D453,938 S
6,773,195 B2
D498,763 S
6,924,822 B2 *
6,989,815 B2 *
7,009,596 B2
D526,661 S
7,107,522 B1
D535,657 S
7,171,630 B2
D555,663 S
D555,664 S
7,304,635 B2
D559,858 S
D563,424 S
D568,892 S
7,437,005 B2
7,536,654 B2
7,581,186 B2
D601,170 S
D607,889 S
D609,715 S
D610,161 S
D613,300 S
D624,935 S
D625,326 S
D629,010 S
D629,413 S
D633,523 S
D633,917 S
10/2010
* 10/2010
12/2010
12/2010
3/2011
3/2011
Herceg eta!.
Green, Jr.
Hearst et al ................... 715/848
Ording
Graham
Tims
Totten eta!.
Card eta!. .................... 345/660
Liang eta!. ................... 345/156
Seet eta!.
Arai
Morgan eta!.
Ording
O'Leary eta!.
Nagata eta!.
Nagata eta!.
Seet eta!.
Gusmorino et a!.
Gusmorino et a!.
Stabb et al.
Drucker et a!.
Anthony et al.
Dowdyet a!.
Pelletal.
Poling et al.
Chaudhri
Matas
Chaudhri
Umezawa
Allen
O'Donnell eta!.
Sriver
Trabona eta!.
Poling et al.
D14/488
2003/0117425 A1 *
2003/0210949 A1
2004/00397 50 A1
2004/0145603 A1 *
2004/0255254 A1
2005/0144565 A1 *
2007/0168883 A1 *
201110167369 A1 *
4/2011 Bright et al.
5/2011 Towbin et al. D14/488
5/2011 Cavanaugh eta!. D14/488
1112011 Allen eta!.
6/2003 O'Leary eta!. ............... 345/700
1112003 Tims
2/2004 Anderson eta!.
7/2004 Soares .......................... 345/730
12/2004 Weingart et al.
6/2005 Hemmings ................... 715/776
7/2007 Sugimoto ..................... 715/818
7/2011 vanOs .......................... 715/769
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Co-pending Application, U.S. Appl. No. 29/365,379, Inventors
Anzures eta!., filed Jul. 8, 2010 (Not Published).
Bhangal, S., O'Reilly Media, "The Page Turn Effect in Flash MX,"
(http:/ I ore illy. com/j avascriptl archive/flashbacks.hrml ), published
Sep. 3, 2004, 3 pages.
FlippingBook, "Flipping Book Publisher 2.2 Demonstrations,"
(http:/ I flippingbook.com/products. publi sher/#demonstrations ),
retrieved Apr. 25, 2012, 2 pages.
Hosteasy Solutions, "Flipping Book Publisher 2.0," (http://www.
hosteasysolutions.com/what-we-offer.html), retrieved Apr. 25,2012,
2 pages.
Qarchive.org, "Book Of Time 3D Screensaver 3.1," (http://book-of-
time-3d-screensaver.kryptile-screensavers.qarchive.org), released
Dec. 13, 2004, 3 pages.
Skyhool, naver.com "FLEX" (http://blog.naver.com/PostView.
150027158023&
widgetTypeCallqrue), published Jan. 25, 2008, 3 pages.
* cited by examiner
U.S. Patent
rrr
r { ~ ~
-
Oct. 30, 2012 Sheet 1 of 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
d
J
] f 7
~
0
0
D
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
US D669,906 S
(9
LL
U.S. Patent Oct. 30, 2012 Sheet 2 of 3
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r
d
0
>r,O
r ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- --------------------------
0
US D669,906 S
N
(9
Ll...
U.S. Patent Oct. 30, 2012 Sheet 3 of 3

cf
I
!O
iO
t lr-------_j
io
0
0

----------------------------
US D669,906 S
C)
LL
DOCKET NO: 409268US91RX
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN RE REEXAMINATION OF
U.S. PATENT NO. D669,906
INVENTOR(S):
ELIZABETH CAROLINE CRANFILL, ET
AL.
CONTROL NO: UNASSIGNED
FILED: HEREWITH
FOR: DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION
ANIMATED WITH ANIMATED
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
EXAMINER: UNASSIGNED
GROUP ART UNIT: UNASSIGNED
DECLARATION OF CORRINE M. CUNNINGHAM
COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313
COMMISSIONER:
I, Corrine M. Cunningham, declare as follows:
1. I am a legal assistant at the law firm of Obion, Spivak, McClelland Maier and
Neustadt assigned to the Post Grant Practice Group. I am routinely asked to recover technical
publications from electronic sources, such as the Internet.
2. I recognize Exhibit C, as "Gorenje Kitchen 2008." This exhibit is a true and
accurate copy of a series of interactive screen shots that were obtained from the archived
website www.page-flip.com, which published the graphical user interface (GUI) Gorenje
Kitchen 2008 as an interactive "flipping book." The archive is found at world wide web
address:http://web.archive.org/web/2009030 1 042519/http:/page-flip.cmn/new-demos/03-
kitchen--!?:orenie-2008/index.html. The host, web.archive.org has dated Exhibit E as being
published on the World Wide Web by March 1, 2009.
3. I declare that all statement made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all
statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these
statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made
are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United
States Code.
Dated: December 31,2012
2
/Corrine M. Cunningham/
Corrine M. Cunningham
DOCKET NO.: 409268US91RX
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IN REAPPLICATION OF: GROUP: Unassigned
Elizabeth Caroline CRANFILL, et al.
CONTROL NO: Unassigned EXAMINER: Unassigned
FILED:
FOR:
Herewith
DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH ANIMATED
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Commissioner:
I hereby certify that on December 31, 2012, a copy of the Request for Ex Parte
Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. D669,906 was served via First Class Mail to the following:
Customer Number
22850
Tel. (703) 413-3000
Fax. (703) 413-2220
(OSMMN 07/09)
1100NewYorkAvenue, N.W.
Respectfully Submitted,
OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
/Scott A. McKeown/
Scott A. McKeown
Registration No. 42,866
Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
Application Number:
Filing Date:
Title of Invention: Display Screen or Portion Thereof with Animated Graphical User Interface
First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Elizabeth Caroline CRANFILL
Filer: Scott Anthony McKeown/Corrine Cunningham
Attorney Docket Number: 409268US91RX
Filed as Large Entity
ex parte reexam Filing Fees
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Basic Filing:
REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION 1812 1 17750 17750
Pages:
Claims:
Miscellaneous-Filing:
Petition:
Patent-Appeals-and-Interference:
Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance:
Extension-of-Time:
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Miscellaneous:
Total in USD ($) 17750
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
EFSID: 14589775
Application Number: 90012757
International Application Number:
Confirmation Number: 1110
Title of Invention: Display Screen or Portion Thereof with Animated Graphical User Interface
First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Elizabeth Caroline CRANFILL
Customer Number: 22850
Filer: Scott Anthony McKeown/Corrine Cunningham
Filer Authorized By: Scott Anthony McKeown
Attorney Docket Number: 409268US91RX
Receipt Date: 31-DEC-2012
Filing Date:
TimeStamp: 16:09:15
Application Type: Reexam (Third Party)
Payment information:
Submitted with Payment yes
Payment Type Credit Card
Payment was successfully received in RAM $17750
RAM confirmation Number 2801
Deposit Account
Authorized User
File Listing:
Document I
Document Description
I
File Name
I
File Size( Bytes)/ I Multi 'I
Pages
Number Message Digest Part /.zip (ifappl.)
33828
1 Reexam Miscellaneous Incoming Letter 906Transmittal.pdf no 2
ecf89cd1614ed5e55d89fcdf4dcd5af77f604
677
Warnings:
Information:
25960
2
Reexam- Info Disclosure Statement
9061DSForm 1449.pdf 1
Filed by 3rd Party
no
d2634aff7 c442cac590715600b9fc564ce12
Od9
Warnings:
Information:
357639
3
Receipt of Orig. Ex Parte Request by D906PatentRequestforReexam.
no 24
Third Party pdf
3fc6203bfbc1fd0c0e62d525caeb560e2bff8
eoo
Warnings:
Information:
132525
4
Reexam - Affidavit/Deci/Exhibit Filed by
ExibitA.pdf 5
3rd Party
no
53f7dd6ccd03e43bc5a91 06ed4cf4156a73
d8d2
Warnings:
Information:
8451053
5
ExibitB.pdf 246
3rd Party
no
7 ca881 eb33f0b392ed96cab7f9015d2d0d3
8a36c
Warnings:
Information:
64255
6
ExhibitC.pdf 3
3rd Party
no
f552f4652a2517 ca 1763cfb2296367317986
427c
Warnings:
Information:
927473
7
ExhibitD.pdf 19
3rd Party
no
e501 a7a26503750bdb6093b53b4b78f383
95a73
Warnings:
Information:
2329396
8
123456USexhibite.pdf 10
3rd Party
no
d18ac3af134 7879fe59709020a7f53a514ea
463b
Warnings:
Information:
23158
9
ExhibitF.pdf 2
3rd Party
no
9699a eb870f88e9e 5 f6a 7 6e 1 5 f6be8a 7f99d
clOd
Warnings:
Information:
18928
10 Reexam Certificate of Service
906CertificateofService123112.
1
pdf
no
71 db22772b216533bedc3f85d2d5965d 19
ab81e7
Warnings:
Information:
30162
11 Fee Worksheet (SB06) fee-info. pdf no 2
5f19c15c858d2aacf28bea5b3ca02a4ba681
302f
Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes) 12394377
This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
New Under 35 U.S.C. 111
If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
National Stage of an International under 35 U.S.C. 371
If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
New International Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 181 0), a Notification of the International Application Number
and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/1 OS) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
the application.

D906 Reexam

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

D906 Reexam

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION TRANSMITTAL FORM

Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam

S-ar putea să vă placă și