EXHIBIT C

Declaration of Richard M. Chen in Support of Microsoft Corporation’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Patent Ineligibility

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139-3 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 6
RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 

EXPEDITED PROCEDURE 

GROUP 2614 

PATENT APPLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

Docket No: Q73020 

Group Art Unit: 2614 

In re application of 

Emmanual MARILL Y, et al. 

Appln. No.: 10/307,461 

Confirmation No.: 9501 

Filed: December 2, 2002 

Examiner: Melur RAMAKRISHNAIAH 

For: A METHOD OF DETERMINING SERVICE TRENDS 

MAIL STOP AF 

Commissioner for Patents 

P.O. Box 1450 

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 

Sir: 

RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 

In response to the Office Action dated July 19, 2007, please amend the above-identified 

application as follows on the accompanying pages. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

REMARKS .. ............................................. ................. ................ .... ............ ...................................... 2 

wsou_ 454_7366160-0000550 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139-3 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 6
RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 

U.S. Appln. No.: 10/307,461 

REMARKS 

Attorney Docket No.: Q73020 

Reconsideration and allowance of the subject application are respectfully requested. 

Claims 1 and 3-13 are all the claims pending in the application. In response to the Office Action, 

Applicant respectfully submits that the claims define patentable subject matter. 

Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 12 and 13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated 

by Clark (WO 01/80492). Claim 4 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Clark in view of Jones et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,721,750, hereafter "Jones"). 

Claims 7-10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark in view 

of Chittipeddi (U.S. Patent No. 6,246,325). Claim 11 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 

as being unpatentable over Clark in view of Deville (U.S. Patent No. 5,909,646). 

In the Amendment filed on June 12, 2007, Applicant submitted that there was no teaching 

or suggestion in Clark of the feature "determining as a function of the trend of the indicator a 

time of the service indicator crossing a defined threshold", as recited in amended claim 1, and 

moreover, the Examiner had provided no specific support in the cited reference for this feature of 

claim 1 (which was previously recited in claim 2), but merely alleged that this feature along with 

the features of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 12 and 13 are taught in the Abstract, page 5, line 25 -

page 6, line 23; page 7, line 25-page 9, line 21; page 10, line 17 - page 14, line 19 and FIGS. 3-

7. 

2 

wsou_ 454_7366160-0000551 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139-3 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 6
RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 

U.S. Appln. No.: 10/307,461 

Attorney Docket No.: Q73020 

In response, the Examiner now asserts: 

Clark clearly teaches: The value of R (reads on trend) is compared to a threshold 

value and an indication transferred to SNMP Agent (307, fig. 3) should the value 

ofR be below said threshold value, according to FIG. 7 steps 731 and 734 (page 

13, lines 5-6). This clearly reads on applicant's claim limitation such as: 

determining as a function of the trend of the indicator a time service indicator 

crossing a defined threshold. 

Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 would not have been anticipated by Clark. In 

particular, there is no teaching or suggestion in Clark of "determining as a function of the trend 

of the indicator a time of the service indicator crossing a defined threshold", as recited in the 

claim. 

Clark discloses a subjective quality monitoring system which estimates the parameters of 

a statistical model representing the probabilities of a packet based transmission system being in a 

low loss state or a high loss state, and uses these estimates to predict the subjective quality of a 

multimedia signal. A Voice Quality Monitor (309) computes an estimate of a received voice 

quality based on previously gathered statistics. This computed voice quality value is transferred 

to a Threshold and History Tracking function ( 405) and stored for later retrieval (page 12). 

Clark further discloses that an Integrator value (R) contained within the Threshold and History 

Tracking function (405) is compared to a threshold value, and if the Integrator value (R) is below 

the threshold value, an indication is sent to an SNMP agent (307). 

However, Applicant respectfully submits that there is simply no teaching or suggestion in 

Clark of determining a time of a service indicator crossing a defined threshold as a function of 

3 

wsou_ 454_7366160-0000552 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139-3 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 6
RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 

U.S. Appln. No.: 10/307,461 

Attorney Docket No.: Q73020 

ilie trend of the indicator, as required by the claim. The trend indicators of the clamed invention 

are used, for example, to define service evolution forecasts, making it QOssible to establish 

functions such as a time remaining for a threshold crossing and a level of service after a 

redetermined time. A signal may also be given to warn that a predetermined trend is being 

exceeded or is in imminent danger of failing, thereby enabling preventative measures to be 

implemented. This form of trend determination enables the evolution reguirements of the 

network in the short, medium and long term to be determined. 

Applicant res ectfully submits that this aspect of the claim is neither taught nor suggested 

by Clark. In other words, Clark does not disclose determining a time that a service indicator will 

cross a defined threshold as a function of the trend of the indicator, as re uired by the claim. 

Further, Chittipeddi, Jones and Devillle do not make up for the deficiencies of Clark. 

Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 should be allowable, because 

the cited reference does not teach or suggest all of the features of the claim. Claims 3-13 should 

also be allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on independent claim 1. 

In view of the above, reconsideration and allowance of this application are now believed 

to be in order, and such actions are hereby solicited. If any points remain in issue which the 

Examiner feels may be best resolved through a personal or telephone interview, the Examiner is 

kindly requested to contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below. 

4 

wsou_ 454_7366160-0000553 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139-3 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 6
RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 

U.S. Appln. No.: 10/307,461 

Attorney Docket No.: Q73020 

The USPTO is directed and authorized to charge all required fees, except for the Issue 

Fee and the Publication Fee, to Deposit Account No. 19-4880. Please also credit any 

overpayments to said Deposit Account. 

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 

Telephone: (202) 293-7060 

Facsimile: (202) 293-7860 

WASHlNGTON OFFICE 

23373 

CUSTOMER NUMBER 

Date: November 19, 2007 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mark E. Wallerson 

Registration No. 59,043 

5 

wsou_ 454_7366160-0000554 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139-3 Filed 04/19/22 Page 6 of 6