Exhibit 2

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 7
RECEIVED 

CENTRAL.FAX CENTER 

Har 27 2006 1:47PM Carmen Patti & Associates 312-346-2810 p.1 

MAR 2 7 2006 · 

LUC-310/Li 2-7 

IN.TH.E UNITE0 Sf ATES 

PATENT AND TRA:b~EMARK.OFFICE 

Patent Appllcatlon 

lnventor(s): 

Ca$8 No.: 

Serial No.: 

Zhian Li 

LUC-310/Li 2-7 

10/027,761 

12121i2001 

Examiner 

Art Unit: 

Kerri M. Dyke 

2667 

Filing Oate: 

Title: METHOD ANO APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING CIRCUIT AND PACKETSWITCHED CALLS ON A NETWORK 

CERTIFICATE OF FACSIM.ILE TRANSMISSION 

I hereby certify that this correspondence is being sent via facsimile 

transmission to Corn.missioner fc;,r Patemts, Mail Stop Amendment, 

Group Art Unit 26{?7, Attention: ~aminet Kerri M.. Dyke, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexii.uidria, VA 22313-1459, at fax number (571) 273-8300, on 

March 27, 2006. · · 

· Date of Signature: March 27, 2006 

Comrnissiqner for Patents. 

Man stop Amendment . 

Group Art Unit 2667 . 

Attention: Examiner Kerri M .. Dyke 

P.O. Sc,x 14q0 . . . 

Alexandria, VA 2231~1450 

Fax· Number (571) 273-83.00 

Carmen B. Patti 

. Att~rney for Applicants 

. Reg. No. 26,184 

. PRE-APPEAL BRIEF REQUEST FOR REVIEW 

Dear Sir: . . . . -· . . . 

Applicants req~est re~iew of· the ·f111al 'fejection of this application. No 

arriendments are ~ing filed with this req·uest. fhis request is.being filed with a Notice . -- : 

of Appeal. The review is requested ·for the reasons stated pn the attached sheets (not . 

more than 5 pages). 

1 

. PAGE.1/13 • RCVD AT 3/27/2006 2:57:03 PM [Easte~n standard Time]• syR:USP')"O·EFXRF:ti/34 • DNIS:2738300 • CSID:312 346 28,.0 • DURATION (mm-ss):06-0D. . . . · :, : 

wsou_ 462_7106121-0001599 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 7
Har 27 2006 1:47PM Carmen Patti & Associates 312-346-2810 p.2 

LUC-310/Li 2-7 

REMARKS .. 

Applicants request Pre-Ap~al Brief Review of the Final Office Action for the 

reasons stated below. 

Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) 

Claims 1-6, 8, and 11-15. were rej~cted under 35 U. S.C. § 103(a) as being 

unpatentable over U.S. Patent Number4,49},947·issued to Frank on January 1, 1985 in 

view of U.S. Patent Number 5;327,428 issuetl to Van As et al. on July 5, 1994. 

Claims 7, 9 and ·.16-:17 were reje~ed under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Frank :in view of U.S. Patent. Number 4,556,972 issued to Chan et al.. 

on December 3, 1985, and further in view o(Van As et al. 

Claim 10 was rejected under 35 l.f~.C. § 103(a) as .being un~a1entable over 

Frank in view of U.S. Patent Number 6,738;350,issued to Gao et at on May 18, 2004, 

and further in view of Van As et ai. 

Rejection Under Frank and Van As 

Claims 1-6, B, and 11-15 were rej~eted under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Frank in view Van As et ai. 

Applicants respectfully traverse thi~ gtound of rejectlo~ for the following reasons. 

The Examiner proposes to co~bine/ Frank with Van As to. achieve applicants' . 

claim 1. Ttie Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill 

in the art to allocate isochronous resources to circuits and asynchronous or 

synchronous resources to packets as taught by Van As, in response to the measure of 

the calls as taught by Frank, thereby arriving at the subject matter of applicants' claim 1. 

Applicants thus understand it to be the Exarninf:!r's position that it would have b~n 

obyious to modify the rnulti-be.am. satellite' switched time division multiple accessed 

(SS/TDMA) system. in Frank with Van A•e/ technique for a coliisi~n free insertion and. . . . . . ! . . . . . . 

· removal of circuit switched channels in a dat~ strudure carrying different classes of 

packet-switched traffic. Applicants assert that even. if it were proper to combine the 

cited references, the resulting combination w:ould not make obvious applicants' claims. 

2 

:, 

n 

n 

--1 

l> 

~ .. 

·-rl> 

a, 

rm 

·(') 

o .. 

" . -<·. 

wsou_ 462_7106121-0001600 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 7
Har 27 2006 1:47PM Carmen Patti & Associates 312-346-2810 

LUC-310/Li 2-7 

First, applicants' claim 1 recites, 

"A method comprising: 

receiving, at a local switch, a· plurality of calls that ~re comprised of at 

least one packet-switched call and at least one circult-s~itched can; . ' . . . 

determining a measure of the plurality of calls; 

based on the measure of the plurallty of calls, allocating to the at least 

one circuit-switched call · a first set of resources from a plurality of resources 

between the local switch and a network switch and 1;1llocating to the at least one 

packet-switched call a second set of resource~ frotn the plurality of resources 

between the local switch and the ne~rk switch, and wherein the first set of • i 

resources and the second set of (8!!0Urces a_te citffereor. 

As stated in the Office Action, the ~aminer ~grees that Frank does not teach 

this limitation. Moreover, appiicants note that Van As does not teach this. limitation . ~ . . . 

either. Instead, Van As discloses a technique for oollision free insertion and removal of 

p.3 

. . . . . . . '• 

circuit switched channels in a data structure carrying different classes of packet- _:, 

switched ~ffic . . Van As' technique discloses the use of isochronous, synchronous, and n . . . .n 

asynchronous traffic types. Van As denot~s circuit-swit~hed channels by isochronous 

channels, and packet switched channeis by synchronous or asynchronous channeis. 

Furthermore, Van As discloses that the three traffic types, · . i.e., isochronous, 

synchronous. and asynchronous traffic types, .differ in the variation of the end-to-end *• ·as stated in coiumn 3, lin~S13-19. i 

However, Van As' traffic types are not resources as recited in applicants' claim 1. 

As known by those of ordinary skili In the art, "resource~". as used in applicants' claim 1 . . . .· 

. refers to "the Infrastructure used to provide se~ices" rather than specific traffic types. 

Consequently, "whe.rein the first set of res~urees and the second set of resources are 

different" as recited in applicants claim 1 means the first set of infrastructure used to . . . . 

provide services and the second set of infrastructure used to provide services are 

different". Since the traffic types In Van As are not infrastructure used to provide 

services, Van As is missing the resources &$ recited in applicants' c_lalm 1. 

Second, the proposed co~bination of Frank with Van As does not reflect the 

specific limitations recited in applicants' cl~irh 1 since the resultant system would not be 

a properly functioning system. Specfficaf~. · Frank's technique integrates circuit and 

3 

-t 

i 

. \' 

.~,~:rh.::PAce 31~1~·; Rcv1,.-Ai·w 120,rs2:i1;·03~PM4

iea:s.;;;l~d;:d~T1.;;r~·svR;us~~~F·i~;J;~~~~o~iS~:~7ir3tr.,~<c~.ti';~1-i·ii~r2~-1~•;-ou~nON~,~~:;~;~·os~rt,~M t.1W~~t1;~ 

wsou_ 462_1106121-0001601 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 7
Ma·r 27 2006 1: 47PM Carmen Patti & Associates 312-346-2810 p.4 

LUC-310/Li 2-7 

. . . . . 

packet switching in a single communicatioos system to achieve economy by sharing ·' 

transmission and switching equipment by rpeans of dynamic scheduling, as stated in 

column 5, _ lines 21-27. In Frank's dynamic scheduling technique new circuits are 

assigned first, followed by packets, howev:er, high priority packets may be assigned 

before circuits, as stated in col.umn 5, lines 5,6-59. 

Van As' technique · does ~ share transmission ahd switching equipment, 

because Van As separates traffic . types a·s isochronous channels, i.e., circuits, 

synchronous channels and asynchronous channels, i.e., packets, as stated in column 3, 

lines 4-25. Also, in contrast to the dynamic scheduling of circuits and packets taught by . . . 

Frank, Van As' isochronous slots follow )trict timing rules and can preempt both 

synchronous and asynchronous slots. Also, synchronous slots can bypass 

asynchronous slots, as stated in column s; lines 35-55. Van As does not teach that . - either synchronous or asynchronous slots, i.e., packets,· cari be assigned before . . ; -

isochronous slots, i.e., circuits, as required for high pri~rity packets by Frank. Thus, the 

system resulting from the proposed. ~tnbination would not be ~ properly fund1onlng 

system. 

Accordingly, since a person s·kllled · in the · art would not look to combine the 

references as suggested and since ttie combination ·would not result in the invention as . . -\ . . 

claimed, applicants submit that the combination and resuitant rejection are improper, 

and therefore claim 1 is ·allowable over the proposed combination. Since claims 2-6 and 

8 depend from allowable claim 1, these dependent. claims are also allowable for the 

same reasons set forth above for independent claim 1. 

Independent claims 11 and 16 each· have a limitation similar to th~t of . ~ . 

independent claim 1, which was shown is :not ·taught by the proposed combination of 

Frank with Van As. For example, claim \1 recites'. "wherein the at least one circuitswitched call is allocated a first set of resources from the plurality of resources and the • > 

at least one packet-switched call is allocated a $eCOnd set of resources from the 

plurality of resources, and wherein the fi~t set of reso~rces and the second set of _.· 

resources are different" ·and claim 16 recites "wherein· the circuit-switched calls are 

allocated a first set of ~esources from the piurallty of resources and the packet-switched 

calls are allocated a second set of resources from the plurality of resources, and 

4 

.J3 

m 

c.n 

--t 

)>· 

~ 

-

s;:. 

0:, 

~ 

·m 

n· 

·-o·· 

~ 

wsou_ 462_7106121-0001602 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 7
Ma·r 27 2006 1: 48PM Carmen Patti & Associates 312-346-2810 

LUC-310/Li 2-7 

• I 

wherein the first set of resources and the s~ond set of resources are different';. The . . 

proposed combination of Frank and va·n As does not teach these limitations for the . . . 

above-mentioned reasons. T~erefore, claims 11 and 16 are likewise allowable over the 

proposed combination. Since claims 12-15 depend· from ·claim 11, and claim 17 

depends from claim ·16, these dependent claims are also allowable over the proposed 

combination. 

Rejections Under Frank, Van As. Chan, and.Gao 

Claims 7, 9 and 16-17 were reje~ed under 35 U,S.C. § 103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Frank in view of Chan et al~. and further in view of Van As et al. 

p.5 

Claim 10 was rej.ected under 35 U.~.C. § 103(a) 'as ·being unpatentable over · . . 

Frank in view of Gao et al., and further in view of Van As et· ai. 

Applicants respectfully traverse these grounds of rejection. 

With respe~t to. claims 7, 9-10 and 16-17, Frank ~nd Van As do not teach or 

suggest applicants' limitation calling for, "based on the measure of the plurality of calls, 

allocating to the at least one circuit-switched cail a fi~t set of resources from a piuralify 

of resourcesbe1we~n the local switch and a

1

.network ·s~itch and all~cating to the at least 

on~ packet-switched·. can a second . set oi resource$ from the . plurality of resources . 

between the local switch and the network switch~ and wherein the first set of resources 

and , the second set of reso~rces are diff~rent" as redted in applleants' claim 1, and 

· Frank and Va.n As do not teach · or sugg,est "wherein the circuit-switched calls are 

allocated a first set of resources from the pl~rality of resources and the packet-switched 

calls are allocated a sec.and set of resour~s from the plurality of resources, and . . . . . . . 

wherein the first set of resources and the second set of resources are different" as 

recited in independent claim 1_6 for the above-mentioned reasons. The Office Action 

does not cite Chan or Gao as supplying these elements, and applicants agree ttiat they . . . •, . 

do not supply these element. Sin~ claims, 7 and 9-10 depend from claim 1, and claim 

17 depends from claim 16, . these dependent claims are. aliowable ·over the proposed .. 

combinations under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). 

5 

--

wsou_ 462_7106121-0001603 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 6 of 7
Har 27 2006 1:48PM Carmen Patti & Associates 312-346-2810 p.6 

LUC-310/LI 2-7 

Conclusion 

In view of the above remark$, withcfr~wal of the rejections and/or reversal of the 

rejections of all claims pending is respectfully requested. . 

If a telephone conference would be of assistance in advancing the prosecution of 

this application, feel free to call applicants' attorney. 

Dated: March 27, 2006 · 

CARMEN 8. PATTI & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

· Customer Number 47382 

Re~pectfully submitted, 

. By_··-=-~:;__ __ ......_ ___ _;,_;=~--

6 

. Ciii'men B. f>attl 

Attomey for Applicants 

Reg. No. 26,784 

a, 

m 

~ 

-~ 

)> 

-

s; 

a:, · r- . m 

(') 

0 

-a . -< 

wsou_ 462_1106121-0001604 

Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA Document 48-2 Filed 01/29/21 Page 7 of 7