UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Address: COMMISSIONERFORPATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

90/014,560 08/06/2020 6725456 50348.48 3047

147786 7590 09/11/2020 EXAMINER

Botos Churchill IP Law LLP
BASEHOAR, ADAM L
430 Mountain Avenue, Suite 401
New Providence, NJ 07974
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER

3992

MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

09/11/2020 PAPER

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Commissioner for Patents

United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov

DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER

(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

IP SECTION
2323 VICTORY AVENUE
SUITE 700
DALLAS, TX 75219

EX PARTEREEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM

REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014,560.

PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 6725456.

ART UNIT 3992.

Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).

Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).

PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
 Control No. Patent Under Reexamination
90/014,560 6725456
Order Granting Request For
Ex Parle Reexamination Examiner Art Unit AIA (FITF) Status
Adam L Basehoar 3992 No

--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--

The request for ex parte reexamination filed 08/06/2020 has been considered and a determination has
been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the
determination are attached.

Attachments: a) • PT0-892, b)~ PTO/SB/08, c)O Other:

1. ~ The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.

RESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:

For Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).

For Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed
Patent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.
If Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester
is permitted.

'ADAM L BASEHOAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992

cc:Requester ( if third party requester)

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTOL-471G(Rev. 01-13) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Part of Paper No. 20200810
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 2
Art Unit: 3992
DECISION

1. A substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) affecting independent claim 13 of

United States Patent Number 6,725,456 BI (hereafter the "Bruno '456 patent") is raised by the

Request (hereafter the "Request") for ex parte reexamination filed on 08/06/2020.

2. Since the Requester did not request reexamination of claims 1-12 and 14-23 of the Bruno

'456 patent and did not assert the existence of a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ)

for such claims, such claims will not be reexamined. The Office's determination in both the

order for reexamination and the examination stage of the reexamination ordered will generally be

limited solely to a review of the claim(s) for which reexamination was requested (see: MPEP

2240 & 2243). Additionally, if a Requester fails to set forth the pertinency and manner of

applying the cited art to a claim as required by 37 CFR l.510(b), that claim will generally not be

reexamined. This matter was squarely addressed in Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.

v. Dudas, 85 USPQ2d 1594 (E.D. Va 2006). The District Court upheld the Office's discretion to

not reexamine claims in an inter partes reexamination proceeding other than those claims for

which reexamination had specifically been requested.

3. The Examiner notes that the Bruno '456 patent term appears to have expired (see: MPEP

2701) on 11/29/2019 after a full twenty year term from the date on which the application for the

patent was filed (i.e., application no. 09/450,035, filed on 11/29/1999). Once a patent has

expired, no amendment may be proposed for entry in an expired patent other than the

cancellation of claims which will be incorporated into the patent by a certificate issued after the

expiration of the patent (see: MPEP 2250(111) and 37 C.F.R. l.530(j)). Additionally, in a
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 3
Art Unit: 3992
reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired patent, claim construction pursuant to

the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d

1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary

meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the

invention) should be applied since the expired claims are not subject to amendment. See Ex parte

Papst-Motoren, I USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). Therefore, the Examiner now

grants the claims their "ordinary and customary meaning" pursuant to Phillips v. A WH Corp.

Information Disclosure Statement

4. Regarding Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submissions, MPEP 2256 recites the

following: "Where patents, publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a

party (patent owner or requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite

degree of consideration to be given to such information will be normally limited by the degree to

which the party filing the information citation has explained the content and relevance of the

information. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the form

PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent, without an indication to the contrary in the record, do

not signify that the information has been considered by the examiner any further than to the

extent noted above."

Accordingly, the IDS submission filed by Third Party Requester (3PR) on 08/06/2020

has been considered by the Examiner only with the scope required by MPEP 2256, unless

otherwise noted.
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 4
Art Unit: 3992

Affidavits, Declarations, or Other Written Evidence

5. The Examiner recognizes that declarations by Dr. Philip Greenspun (see: Exhibit C) and

Dr. Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis (see: Exhibit 0) have been referenced in support of Third Party

Requester. The declarations have been considered and made of record. The Examiner further

notes that affidavits or declarations or other written evidence which explain the contents or

pertinent dates of prior art patents or printed publications in more detail may be considered in

reexamination (see: MPEP 2258(1)(E)), but any rejection must be based upon the prior art

patents or printed publications as explained by the affidavits or declarations or other written

evidence. The rejection in such circumstances cannot be based on the affidavits or declarations

or other written evidence as such, but must be based on the prior art patents or printed

publications. In the instant case, the submitted Greenspun declaration explains the contents of

the prior art patents and printed publications (e.g., the Bruno Paper and the Shimamura patent) in

more detail and the submitted Hall-Ellis declaration explains the pertinent dates of the Bruno

Paper, Bettison, and Hogan references in more detail.

References Cited in the Request

6. A total of four references in specific combinations have been asserted in the Request as

providing teachings relevant to independent claim 13 of the Bruno '456 patent. The proposed

references which make up the combinations are as follows:

Bruno Paper - (Bruno et al., Proceedings of the USENIX 1998 Annual Technical

Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 15-19, 1998, pp. 235-246, "The Eclipse Operating

System: Providing Quality of Service via Reservation Domains", 11/11/1998)

Shimamura - (U.S. Patent No. 5,682,530, published 10/28/1997)

Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 5
Art Unit: 3992
Bettison - (Bettison et al., AUUG Conference Proceedings, Darling Harbour, Sydney,

Australia, September 25-27, 1991, pp. 53-65, "Share and Enjoy SHARE II - A

User Administration and Resource Control System for UNIX", 01/13/1992)

Hogan - (David Hogan, The University of Sydney, Technical Report Number 506, ISBN 1

864510242, pp. 1-23, "Hierarchical Fair Queueing", 03/12/1997)

7. Of the four references in the current filed Request, the (1) Bruno Paper was

cited/considered and actively applied in a plurality of rejections against original claims 1-9, 11,

14, and 21-27 during the original prosecution history of the Bruno '456 patent. The (2)

Shimamura, Bettison, and Hogan references were neither previously cited/considered nor

applied to any of the claims during the original prosecution history of the Bruno '456 patent.

In addition, it is noted that although Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) may be

utilized in a proposed rejection, it will not be discussed herein as a separate prior art patent or

printed publication for SNQ determination purposes. Similar to the Bruno Paper noted above,

the Examiner notes that AAPA was considered and actively applied in a plurality ofrejections

against original claims 1-9, 11, 14, and 21-27 during the original prosecution history of the

Bruno '456 patent.

Identification of Every Claim for Which Reexamination is Requested

8. The four references cited above are discussed in the Request regarding independent claim

13 of the Bruno '456 patent. Pages 7-20 of the Request discuss and detail out proposed

substantial new questions of patentability in light of specific combinations of said four

references.
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 6
Art Unit: 3992
Prosecution History

9. The Bruno '456 patent was originally assigned serial number 09/450,035 and was filed

on 11/29/1999 with 27 claims.

A Non-Final Action was initially mailed on 03/24/2003. Claims 1-9, 11, 14, and 21-27

were rejected and claims 10 (now independent claim 13 of the Bruno '456 patent), 12, 13, 15-20

were indicated as allowable and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.

Claims 1-5, 7, and 24-27 were rejected as anticipated by the Bruno Paper, claims 8-9, 11, and 14

were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in view of Bennett et al., claims 21 and 22

were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in view of Saleh et al., and claims 6 and 23

were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in view of Bowman-Amuah.

In response to the Non-Final Action, Applicant at least rewrote dependent claim 10 (now

independent claim 13 of the Bruno '456 patent) in independent form to include the features of

independent base claim 1 and intervening dependent claims 2 and 8. Applicant also argued that

the proportional share scheduler of the Bruno Paper thus "fails to provide an operating system

having an application programming interface utilizable to establish one or more quality of

service guarantees ... that correspond to one or more object references used in the request" and

that the Bruno Paper does not teach or suggest that "the application programming interface

comprises a resource reservation application programming interface ... is permitted to limit

resource reservations used by one or more of its children processes."

Subsequent to Applicant's response, a Final Action was mailed on I 0/03/2003. Claims

1-9, 11, 14, and 21-27 were rejected, claims 12 and 13 were indicated as allowable and objected

to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and claims 10 and 15-20 were allowed.

Claims 1-5, 7, and 24-27 were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in view of AAPA,
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 7
Art Unit: 3992
claims 8-9, 11, and 14 were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in view of AAPA and

Bennett et al., claims 21 and 22 were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in view of

AAPA and Saleh et al., and claims 6 and 23 were rejected as unpatentable by the Bruno Paper in

view of AAPA and Bowman-Amuah.

In response to the Final Action, Applicant at least rewrote dependent claim 12 in

independent form, canceled claims 1, 2, 8, and 11, and amended independent claims 24-27 to

incorporate the limitations previously associated with dependent claim 12. Applicant also noted

that AAP A "actually describes disadvantages of conventional proportional share schedulers" and

argued that the Bruno Paper fails to teach or suggest that "a resource reservation application

programming interface defines a manner in which a parent process running on the operating

system is permitted to limit resource reservations used by one or more of its children processes."

Subsequent to Applicant's response, the examiner then mailed a Notice of Allowability

on 12/24/2003. The Notice of Allowability indicating that claims 3-7, 9, 10, and 12-27

(renumbered 1-23) were allowed. The Notice of Allowability did not include a specific

examiner's statement of reasons for allowance. While no specific reasons for allowance was

given by the examiner, the prosecution history indicates at least the following limitations to have

been considered some of the allowable features:

(1) Limitations directed toward "wherein associated with each resource reservation r is a

minimum amount of resources that r receives from its parent p, such that the minimum amount

of resources associated with p is at least equal to the sum of the minimum amount of resources

associated with each of p's children" (i.e., the allowable subject matter of dependent claim 10

indicated in the Non-Final Action).

Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 8
Art Unit: 3992

Substantial New Question of Patentability

10. For "a substantial new question of patentability" to be present, it is only necessary that:

(A) the prior art patents and/or printed publications raise a substantial question of patentability

regarding at least one claim, i.e., the teaching of the (prior art) patents and printed publications is

such that a reasonable examiner would consider the teaching to be important in deciding whether

or not the claim is patentable; and (B) the same question of patentability as to the claim has not

been decided by the Office in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent, raised to

or by the Office in a pending reexamination or supplemental examination of the patent, or

decided in a final holding of invalidity ( after all appeals) by a federal court in a decision on the

merits involving the claim. If a reexamination proceeding was terminated/vacated without

resolving the substantial question of patentability question, it can be re-presented in a new

reexamination request. It is not necessary that a "prima facie" case of unpatentability exist as to

the claim in order for "a substantial new question of patentability" to be present as to the claim.

Thus, "a substantial new question of patentability" as to a patent claim could be present even if

the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in

view of, the prior art patents or printed publications (see: MPEP 2242(1)).

In a decision to order reexamination made on or after November 2, 2002, reliance on old

art does not necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability that

is based exclusively on that old art. See Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1899-1906 (2002),

which expanded the scope of what qualifies for a substantial new question of patentability upon

which a reexamination may be based. Determinations on whether a substantial new question of

patentability exists in such an instance shall be based upon a fact-specific inquiry done on a case-

by-case basis. For example, a substantial new question of patentability may be based solely on
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 9
Art Unit: 3992
old art where the old art is being presented/viewed in a new light, or in a different way, as

compared with its use in the earlier examination(s), in view of a material new argument or

interpretation presented in the request. Such material new argument or interpretation may be

based solely on claim scope of the patent being reexamined (see: MPEP 2242(Il)(A)).

11. For purposes of determination, independent claim 13 is used as the representative claim

for the proposed rejections in the Request. The italicized/balded sections of independent claim

13 below are utilized by the Examiner to show how specific teachings of the proposed references

create a substantial new question of patentability in light of the prosecution history as discussed

above.

Claim 13:

13. A method of ensuring a particular quality of service for an application in a computer

system, the method comprising the steps of:

utilizing an application programming interface of an operating system to establish one or

more quality of service guarantees that correspond to a reference to an object; and

providing a particular quality of service to a request in accordance with the one or more

quality of service guarantees that correspond to one or more object references used in the

request;

wherein the quality of service guarantees comprise resource reservations, each specifying

a portion of a resource set aside for exclusive use by one or more processes;
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 10
Art Unit: 3992
wherein the resource reservations are organized hierarchically such that each resource

reservation r may have at most one parent and one or more siblings and children, and associated

with r is a weight that specifies how r shares the resources of r's parent with r's siblings; and

wherein associated with each resource reservation r is a minimum amount of resources

that r receives from its parent p, such that the minimum amount of resources associated with p

is at least equal to the sum of the minimum amount of resources associated with each ofp's

children.

Discussion of References that Raise a SNO

12. All of the proposed references raise a substantial new question as noted below.

Bruno Paper in view of AAPA and Shimamura

The Bruno Paper generally describes a new operating system abstraction called

reservation domains, which are intended to provide predictable Quality of Service (QoS) support

for applications by controlling resource provisioning (see: Bruno Paper, p. 235). The Bruno

Paper further teaches that a reservation domain is a collection of processes and corresponding

resource reservations whereby the processes that belong to a particular reservation domain are

guaranteed to receive at least their reserved portions of the domain's associated resources (see:

Bruno Paper, p. 236). The Bruno Paper also teaches that each process belongs to a single

reservation domain and that a new process usually inherits the reservation domain of its parent

whereby resource reservations are accomplished by writing strings to appropriate control files

see: Bruno Paper, p. 240).

Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 11
Art Unit: 3992
AAPA teaches that some proportional share schedulers were implemented with an API

and that existing operating systems were also implemented with a conventional API (see: AAPA,

column 2, lines 29-57).

The Shimamura reference generally teaches managing resources of a whole computer

via a hierarchical resource management method for hierarchically managing resources by a time-

sharing-oriented operating system ( see: Shimamura, column 1, lines 6-14). More specifically,

Shimamura teaches how newly generated child processes secure a minimum amount of

requested resources from their parent processes within a hierarchical resource management tree

(see: Shimamura, column 6, line 44-column 7, line 35; Figs. 1, 3, and 4).

The Bruno Paper is cited in the Request as a reference used in combination with AAPA

and the Shimamura reference to read on independent claim 13 (see: Request, pp. 7-17 and 20-

22). As shown in the Request and noted above, the Shimamura reference appears to disclose

for independent claim 13, "wherein associated with each resource reservation r is a minimum

amount of resources that r receives from its parent p, such that the minimum amount of

resources associated with pis at least equal to the sum of the minimum amount of resources

associated with each ofp's children" (see: Shimamura, column 8, line 49-column 11, line 47;

Figs. 1, 3, and 4).

As noted above, the Bruno Paper and AAPA were previously cited/considered and

actively applied in a plurality of rejections during the original prosecution history of the Bruno

'456 patent. In the instant case, while the Bruno Paper and AAPA are considered "old art," the

Bruno Paper and AAPA are being presented/viewed in a new light/different way as compared

with their use in the earlier examination. For example, the Bruno Paper and AAPA are now

being viewed in a new light/different way, as compared with their use in the earlier examination,
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 12
Art Unit: 3992
because the Bruno Paper and AAPA are now being viewed in combination with the newly cited

Shimamura reference.

It is agreed that the consideration of the combination of the Bruno Paper in view of

AAPA and Shimamura raises a SNO as to representative independent claim 13 of the Bruno

'456 patent as pointed out above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner

would consider these teachings important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable.

Accordingly, the combination of the Bruno Paper in view of AAPA and Shimamura

raises a substantial new question of independent claim 13, which question has not been decided

in a previous examination of the Bruno '456 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity of

said claim by the Federal Courts regarding the Bruno '456 patent.

Bettison in view of Hogan

The Bettison reference generally describes SHARE II, a user administration and resource

control system for UNIX (see: Bettison, p. 53). Bettison further teaches that SHARE II is

controlled through a single new multi-function system call and that users in SHARE II occupy

the nodes of a hierarchical tree structure (see: Bettison, p. 58). Bettison also teaches providing a

quality of service to nodes of the hierarchical tree structure using a fair share scheduler, whereby

users can expect to receive at least their entitlement of CPU service regardless of the behavior of

other users (see: Bettison, pp. 60-61).

The Hogan reference generally teaches a new queueing algorithm for networks called

Hierarchical Fair Queueing (HFQ) wherein HFQ provides a guaranteed share of bandwidth to

each class (see: Hogan, p. 1). More specifically, Hogan teaches Hierarchical Processor Sharing

(HPS) which provides a minimum guaranteed resource (e.g., bandwidth) allocation to child
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 13
Art Unit: 3992
nodes from parent nodes in a hierarchical tree structure, wherein the amount of guaranteed

resource associated with the parent nodes is at least the totality of the minimum guaranteed

resource allocation amount associated with each of parent nodes' children (see: Hogan, pp. 6-7;

Figs. 1-3).

The Bettison reference is cited in the Request as a reference used in combination with the

Hogan reference to read on independent claim 13 (see: Request, pp. 17-20 and 22-24). As

shown in the Request and noted above, the Hogan reference appears to disclose for independent

claim 13, "wherein associated with each resource reservation r is a minimum amount of

resources that r receives from its parent p, such that the minimum amount of resources

associated with pis at least equal to the sum of the minimum amount of resources associated

with each ofp's children" (see: Hogan, pp. 6-7; Figs. 1-3).

As noted above, the Bettison and Hogan references were neither previously

cited/considered nor applied to any of the claims during the original prosecution history of the

Bruno '456 patent.

It is agreed that the consideration of the combination of the Bettison in view of Hogan

raises a SNO as to representative independent claim 13 of the Bruno '456 patent as pointed out

above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider these

teachings important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable.

Accordingly, the combination of the Bettison in view of Hogan raises a substantial new

question of independent claim 13, which question has not been decided in a previous

examination of the Bruno '456 patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity of said claim by

the Federal Courts regarding the Bruno '456 patent.

Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 14
Art Unit: 3992
Scope of Reexamination

13. Claim 13 will be reexamined as requested in the Request. Claims 1-12 and 14-23 are

not subject to reexamination.

Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 15
Art Unit: 3992
Conclusion

14. Extensions of time under 37 CFR l.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings

because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a

reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings

"will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR l.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte

reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR l.550(c).

The Patent Owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565( a) to

apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving

Patent No. 6,725,456 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The Third Party

Requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or

proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP § § 2207, 2282

and 2286.

15. All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed

as follows:

By U.S. Postal Service Mail to:

Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam

ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

By FAX to:

(571) 273-9900
Central Reexamination Unit

By hand to:
Application/Control Number: 90/014,560 Page 16
Art Unit: 3992

Customer Service Window

Randolph Building
401 Dulany St.
Alexandria, VA 22314

By EFS-Web:

Registered users of EFS-Web may alternatively submit such correspondence via the
electronic filing system EFS-Web, at

https://efs.uspto.Qov/efik/rnvportal/efs-registercd

EFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that
needs to act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are "soft scanned" (i.e.,
electronically uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which
offers parties the opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the "soft scanning"
process is complete.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the

Reexamination Legal Advisor or Examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be

directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at telephone number (571) 272-7705.

/ Adam L Basehoar/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992

Conferees:

/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992

/ ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
 Reexamination Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination

90/014,560 6725456
Certificate Date Certificate Number

Requester Correspondence Address: D Patent Owner 0 Third Party

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

IP SECTION
2323 VICTORY AVENUE
SUITE 700
DALLAS, TX 75219

LITIGATION REVIEW 0 ALB 27 August 2020

(examiner initials) (date)
Case Name Director Initials

1: 19-cv-00659 (Open)
1: 19-cv-00660 (Open)
1: 19-cv-00964 (Open)
1: 19-cv-03707 (Open)
1: 19-cv-03709 (Open)

COPENDING OFFICE PROCEEDINGS

TYPE OF PROCEEDING NUMBER

Inter Partes Review IPR2020-00818 (Terminated)

Inter Partes Review IPR2020-00924 (Pending)
Inter Partes Review IPR2020-01041 (Pending)

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office DOC. CODE RXFILJKT

 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination

Search Notes 90/014,560 6725456

Examiner Art Unit

Adam L Basehoar 3992

I CPC - Searched•
Symbol I Date I Examiner

CPC Combination Sets - Searched*

Symbol Date Examiner

US Classification - Searched*
Class Subclass Date Examiner

* See search history printout included with this form or the SEARCH NOTES box below to determine the scope of
the search.

Search Notes
Search Notes Date Examiner
Reviewed Patented File's Prosecution History 08/27/2020 ALB
Reviewed Third Party Requester's Request For Ex Parte ALB
08/27/2020
Reexamination

Interference Search
US Class/CPC
US Subclass/CPC Group Date Examiner
Symbol

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20200810

Page 1 of 1
Receipt date: 08/06/2020 90/014,560 - GAU: 3992

In place of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

PTO-1449 COMMERCE Complete if Known
Form PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE
Application Number In Ex Parte Reexamination of 6,725,456
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT BY Filing Date Herewith
APPLICANT
(use as many sheets as necessary) First Inventor Name John Louis Bruno et al.
Art Unit TED
Examiner Name TED
SHEET 1 OF 1 Attorney Docket 50348.48
I I I Number

U. S.PATENTS
Examiner's Cite No. Document Issue Date Name of Patentee or Applicant of Cited Document
Initials Number MM-DD-YYYY
Ex.E 5682530 10-28-1997 Shimamura

U.S. PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS

Examiner's Cite No. Document Publication Date Name of Patentee or Applicant of Cited Document
Initials Number MM-DD-YYYY

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

Examiner's Cite No. Foreign Patent Publication Date Patentee or Applicant of Translation
Initials Document MM-DD-YYYY Cited Document YIN
(Country Code
-Number-
Kind)

NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS

Examiner's Cite No. Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article, title of the item, date,
Initials page(s), volume-issue number(s), publisher, city/country where published

Ex.D Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, June
15-19, 1998, pp. 235-46, "The Eclipse Operating System: Providing Quality of Service via
Reservation Domains," bv BRUNO et al. (The "Bruno Paper").
Ex.G A UUG Conference Proceedings, Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia, September 25-27,
1991, pp. 53-65, "Share and Enjoy SHAREii -A User Administration and Resource
Control System for Unix," by BETTISON et al. ("Bettison").
Ex.H The University of Sydney, Technical Report Number 506, ISBN 1 86451 024 2, pp. 1-24,
"Hierarchical Fair Queuing," by DAVID HOGAN. ("Hogan").

Examiner Date
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/ 08/27/2020
Si nature Considered
EXAMINER: Initial if reference considered, whether or not citation is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line through citation
if not in conformance and not considered. Include a copy of this form with next communication to applicant.

Customer No. 27683

ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH. /A.L.B/