EXHIBIT 17

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 13
Sep-17-2007 04:59pm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ +17325309808 T-699 P.001 F-878 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 1 of 16 

RECEIVED 

CENTRAL FAX CENTER 

SEP 17 2007 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

PATENT APPLICATION 

Applicant(s): 

Serial No.: 

Examiner: 

Filed: 

Confirmation #: 

Mark Oilman et al. 

09/813,415 

Bilgrami, Asghar H. 

March 21, 2001 

2405 

Group Art Unit: 2143 

Case: 1-6 

Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EFFICIENT REACTIVE 

MONITORING 

MAIL STOP AF 

Commissioner for Patents 

P.O. Box 1450 

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 

SIR: 

C~RTIFICATE OF MAILING OR TRANSMISSION 

I hereby certlfy that tttis correspondence is being deposited 

with the United States Postal SeNlce with sllfficient postage 

for first class mall in an envelope addressed 10: Commissioner 

for Patents, P.O. eox 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, or 

being facslmile transmltted to the USPTO, on the oate 

indicated below. 

7:-l}-D7 

Date 

RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.116 

In response to the final Office Action mailed July 17, 2007, please consider the 

above-identified patent application as follows. 

In the event that an extension of time is required for this response to be 

considered timely, and a petition therefor does not otherwise accompany this response, 

any necessary extension of time is hereby petitioned for. 

The Commissioner is authorized to charge any fees due, including extension of 

time and excess claim fees, to counsel's Deposit Account No. 20-0782/LCNT/Dilman 1. 

591156--1 

PAGE 1116 1 RCVD AT 9{1712007 5:00:59 PM [Eastern Daylight Tirnep SVR:USPTO-EFXRF•J/4•DNIS:2138300 1 CSID:+17325309808 1 DURATION (mrn-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:00pm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813 ,415 

Page 6of 16 

REMARKS 

+17325309808 T-699 P.006/016 F-878 

This response is intended as a full and complete response to the final Office 

Action mailed July 17, 2007. In the Office Action, the Examiner notes that claims 1, 6-

12 and 14 are pending and rejected. 

In view of both the following remarks, Applicants submit that none of the_ claims 

now pending in the application are obvious under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §103. 

Thus, Applicants believe that all of the claims are now in allowable form. 

It is to be understood that Applicants do not acquiesce to the Examiner's 

characterizations of the art of record or to Applicants' subject matter recited in the 

pending claims. Further, Applicants are not acquiescing to the Examiner's statements 

as to the applicability of the art of record to the pending claims by filing the instant 

response. 

REJECTIONS 

35 u.s.c_ §103 

The Examiner has rejected claims 1. 6, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as 

being unpatentable over Boukobza et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6, 122,664, hereinafter 

"Boukobza) and Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent 6,570,867, hereinafter "Robinsonn). 

Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection. 

Claim 1 

According to MPEP §2143, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under 

§103. three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or 

motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available 

to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference 

teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the 

prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim 

limitations. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the 

reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, not In applicant's 

disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USP02d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

591156-1 

PAGE 6116 t RCVD AT 911712007 5:00:59 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] t SYR:USPTO,EFXRF,3/4 * DNIS:2738300 * CSID:+17325309808 * DURATION (mm,ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:00pm From-Uoser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 7 of 16 

+17825309808 T-699 P.007/016 F-878 

The Office Action failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, because 

the combination of Boukobza and Robinson fails to teach or suggest all the claim 

limitations. Namely, the combination of Boukobza and Robinson fails to teach or 

suggest at least the features of monitoring the rate of change of usage of resources at 

one or more nodes and reporting to a centralized management station of the network 

when the rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of the nodes exceeds a 

threshold, as claimed in Applicants' claim 1. 

Boukobza discloses a process for monitoring a plurality of object types of a 

-plurality of nodes including a management node in an information system. As disclosed 

· in Boukobza, monitoring is configured and then distributed in a filtered way from the 

management node to autonomous agents installed in each of the nodes to be monitored 

in order either to locally process the different object types or all of the objects of a 

domain called a global object, or to feed back information to be displayed in a graphical 

interface of the management node. Boukobza further discloses that each agent includes 

a plurality of modules specific to the different object types or to a partlcular domain, and 

that each module measures static and dynamic parameters particular to the object type 

it monitors and collects the measurements. (Boukobza, Abstract). 

Boukobza, however, fails to teach or suggest at least the features of monitoring a 

rate of change of usage of resources at one or more nodes and reporting to a 

centralized management station of the network when the rate of change of the usage of 

the resources of o~e of the nodes exceeds a threshold, as claimed in Applicants' claim 

1. Rather, although Boukobza states that a module on a node that is being monitored 

measures both static and dynamic parameters particular to an object that the module 

monitors, Boukobza fails to teach or suggest monitoring a rate of change of usage of a 

resource, as claimed in Applicants' claim 1. A generic statement that a node being 

monitored measures dynamic parameters. as taught in Boukobza, does not teach or 

suggest monitoring a rate of change, much less a rate of change of the usage of the 

resources of a node, as claimed in Applicants' claim 1. 

In the Office Action, the Examiner cites specific portions of Boukobza (namely, 

Col. 1, Lines 33-35 and Col. 2, Lines 2.1-55), asserting that the cited portions of 

Boukobza disclose Applicants· limitations of -assigning a parameter to each of a plurality 

591156-1 

PAGE 7116' RCVD AT 9117/2007 5:00:59 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] t SVR:USPTO-EFXRF,314' DNIS:2738300 t CSID:+17325309808 t DURATION jmm-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:00pm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 8 of 16 

+17325309808 T-699 P.008/016 F-878 

of nodes of the network, wherein each parameter is indicative of a rate of change of 

usage of said resources of the node," "locally monitoring, at each of the nodes, the rate 

of change of the usage of said resources of the node, n and ureporting to a centralized 

management station of the network when the rate of change of the usage of the 

resources of one of the nodes exceeds a first threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 

1. (Office Action, Pg. 2). 

The cited portions of Boukobza, however, fail to teach or suggest any parameter 

indicative of a rate of change of.usage of a resource or monitoring a rate of change of 

usage of a resource. Rather, the cited portions of Boukobza merely describe generic 

parameters that may be measured or tested relative to predefined thresholds. The cited 

portions of Boukobza do not teach or suggest monitoring a rate of change of usage of a 

resource. Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner specifically point out where 

in the cited portion of Boukobza, or any other portion of Boukobza, there is any teaching 

or suggestion of a monitoring a rate of change of usage of a resource. 

Thus, since Boukobza fails to teach or suggest a ~t~ of change of usage of a 

resource, Boukobza must fail to teach or suggest at least the limitations of "assigning a 

parameter to each of a plurality of nodes of the network, wherein each parameter is 

indicative of a rate of change of usage of said resources of the node,0 "locally 

monitoring, at each of the nodes, the rate of change of the usage of said resources of 

the node," and "reporting to a centralized management station of the network when the 

rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of the nodes exceeds a first 

threshold." as claimed in Applicants' claim 1. 

Furthermore. Robinson fails to bridge the substantial gap between Boukobza and 

Applicants' claim 1. 

In general, Robinson discloses a network management framework for monitoring 

network-level concepts of routes and paths. As disclosed in Robinson, a route and path 

management system includes a data collector for collecting data from individual network 

elements, a management server for processing the collected data into manageable 

route and path objects, and a graphical user interface for allowing a user to manage and 

monitor routes and paths. (Robinson, Abstract). 

591156-1 

PAGE 8116 t RCVD AT 9117/2007 5:00:59 PM [Eastern Da~ight Time]: SVR:USPTO-EFXRf.3/4 t DNIS:2738300 * CSID:+17325309808 * Dl/RATION (mm-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:0lpm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 9 of 16 

+17325309808 T-699 P.009/016 F-878 

Robinson, however, fails to teach or suggest at least the features of monitoring 

the rate of change of usage of resources at one or more nodes and reporting to a 

centralized management station of the network when the rate of change of the usage of 

the resources of one of the nodes exceeds a threshold. 

Rather, Robinson merely describes a polling rate, which, as stated in Robinson, 

is a rate at which network elements are polled by a management system. (Robinson, 

Col. 7, Lines 20-25). A polling rate at which network elements are polled by a 

management system, as taught In Robinson, is not a rate of change of usage of a 

resource at a node, as claimed in Applicants' claim 1. 

Thus, since Robinson fails to teach or suggest a rate of change of usage of a 

resource, Robinson must fail to teach or suggest at least the limitations of uassigning a 

parameter to each of a plurality of nodes of the network, wherein each parameter is 

indicative of a rate of change of usage of said resources of the node," "locally 

monitoring, at each of the nodes, the rate of change of the usage of said resources of. 

the node," and "reporting to a centralized management station of the network when the 

rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of the nodes exceeds a first 

threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 1-. 

Thus, since Boukobza and Robinson each fails to teach or suggest a rate of 

change of usage of a resource, any permissible combination of Boukob:za and Robinson 

must fail to teach or suggest a rate of change of usage of a resource and, therefore, any 

permissible combination of Boukobza and Robinson mustfail to teach or suggest 

suggest at least the limitations of "assigning a parameter to each of a plurality of nodes 

of the network, wherein each parameter is indicative of a rate of change of usage of 

said resources of the node,'' "locally monitoring, at each of the nodes, the rate of change 

of the usage of said resources of the node," and "reporting to a centralized management 

station of the network when the rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of 

the nodes exceeds a first threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 1. 

Furthermore, since Boukobza and Robinson each fail to teach or suggest 

monitoring a rate of change of usage of a resource, Boukobza and Robinson must each 

also fail to teach or suggest other limitations of Applicants' claim 1 associated_ with a 

rate of change of usage of a resource. Specifically, Boukobza and Robinson must also 

591158-1 

PAGE 9/16 * RCVD AT 9/1712007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Daylight Time] 1 SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-3/4 * DNIS:2738300 * CSID:+17325309808 * DURATION (mm-ss}:04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 13
· Sep-17-2007 05:0lpm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 10 of 16 

· +173259098,CECElVl;0-699 P.010/016 F-878 

CENTRAL FAX CENTER 

SEP 17 2007 

fail to teach or suggest each of the limitations of "determining whether a sum of the 

currently reported rates of change of usage of node resources, received in response to 

the poll initiated by the management station, exceeds a second threshold" and 

"generating an alarm if the sum of the currently reported rates of change of usage of 

node resources exceeds the second threshold, else updating the time interval," as 

claimed in Applicants' claim 1. 

Thus, Boukobza and Robinson, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest 

Applicants' claim 1, as a whole. Therefore, independent claim 1 is patentable over 

Boukobza and Robinson and, thus, fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 

and is patentable thereunder. Furthermore, claim 6 depends directly from independent 

claim 1 and recites additional limitations therefor. Therefore, dependent claim 6 also is 

not obvious over Boukobza in view of Robinson, and, thus, fully satisfies the 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and is patentable thereunder. 

Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

Claim 9 

As described herein, Boukobza discloses a process for monitoring a plurality of 

object types of a plurality of nodes including a management node in an information 

system and Robinson discloses a network management framework for monitoring 

network-level concepts of routes and paths. 

Boukobza and Robinson, however, alone or in combination, fail to teach or 

suggest Applicants' claim 9, as a whole. Namely, Boukobza and Robinson, alone or in 

combination, fail to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "initiating a poll, by the 

management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in response 

to a determination that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node resource 

usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage for 

non~reporting nodes exceeds a threshold." as claimed in Applicants· claim 9. Thus, 

Boukobza and Robinson, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest Applicants' 

claim 9, as a whole. 

Furthermore, Applicants note that, according to MPEP §2142, .. [t]he examiner 

bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of 

591156-1 

PAGE 10116 • RCVD AT 911712007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Da~ight Time]' SVR:USPTO•EFXRF-3/4' DNIS:2738300' CSID:+17325309808' DURATION (mm-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 7 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:0lpm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 11 of16 

+17325309808 T-699 P.011/016 F-878 

obviousness. If the examiner does not produce a prima facie case, the applicant is 

under no obligation to submit evidence of nonobviousness." 

The Examiner has failed to produce a prima facie case of obviousness of 

Applicants' claim 9. Specifically, the Examiner has failed to provide any arguments or 

evidence addressing Applicants' claim 9 limitation of "initiating a poll, by the 

management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in response 

to a determination that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node resource 

usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage for 

non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold." The Examiner simply does not address this 

limitation anywhere in the Office Action. Rather, the Examiner merely refers to the 

limitations of Applicants' claim 1 in applying a rejection of Applicants' claims 1 and 9, 

without regard for the differences between Applicants' claim 1 and claim 9. Accordingly, 

Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner has failed to produce a orima facie 

case of obviousness of Applicants' claim 9. 

As such, independent claim 9 fully satisfies the requirements of 35 u.s.c. §103 

and is patentable over Boukobza and Robinson. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully 

request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

Claim 10 

As described herein, Boukobza discloses a process for monitoring a plurality of 

object types of a plurality of nodes including a management node in an information 

system and Robinson discloses a network management framework for monitoring 

network-level concepts of routes and paths~ 

As fqrther described herein, with respect to claim 1, Boukobza and Robinson. 

alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest a rate of change of usage of a resource. 

Thus, for at least the reasons described herein with respect to claim 1, Applicants 

respectfully submit that Boukobza and Robinson, alone or in combination, fail to teach 

or suggest at least the limitation of "reporting to a management station of the network 

when a rate of change of usage of said node resource exceeds the local threshold as 

. determined using local monitoring of the node resource," as claimed in Applicants' claim 

10. 

591156-1 

PAGE 11/16 * RCVD AT 9/1712007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Daylight Time)' SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-314 • DNIS: 2738300 i CSID:+17325309808 • DURATION (mm-ss):04•50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 8 of 13
Sap-17-2007 05:02pm From-Moser, PattBrson & ShBridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 12 of 16 

+ 17325309808 T-699 P.012/016. F-878 

Additionally, Applicants respectfully submit that Boukobza and Robinson, alone 

or in combination, also fail to teach or suggest a variable time interval comprising a 

difference between a current time and a time at which the node was last polled by the 

management station. Thus, Boukobza and Robinson, alone or in combination, must 

also fail to teach or suggest at least the limitation that "said rate of change of usage of 

said node resource is determined using a variable time interval comprising a difference 

between a current time and a time at which the node was last potted by the 

management station," as claimed in Applicants' claim 10. 

Furthermore, Applicants note that, similar to claim 9, the Examiner has failed to 

provide any arguments or evidence addressing Applicants' claim 10 limitation of 

"wherein said rate of change of usage of said node resource is det~rmined using a 

variable time interval comprising a difference between a current time.and a time at 

which the .node was last polled by the management station." The Examiner simply does 

not address this limitation anywhere in the Office Action. Rather, the Examiner merely 

refers to the limitations of Applicants' claim 1 in applying a rejection of Applicants' 

claims 1 and 10, without regard for the differences between Applicants' claim 1 and 

claim 10. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner has failed to 

produce a prima facie case of obviousness of Applicants' claim 10. 

As such, independent claim 10 fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 

and is patentable over Boukobza and Robinson. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully 

request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

Claims 7. 8. 11. 12 and 14 

Claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Manda! et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,170,009, hereinafter "Manda!") and 

Robinson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,570,867, hereinafter "Robinson"). Applicants 

respeetfully traverse the rejection. 

Claim 7 recites the features of monitoring the rate of change of usage of 

resource5 at one or more nodes and reporting to a centralized management station of 

the network when the rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of the nodes 

exceeds a threshold. Mandal and Robinson, however, alone or in combination, fail to 

591156-1 

PAGE 12/16 * RCVD AT 9/17/2007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Da~ight Time]~ SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-314 • DNIS:2738300 • CSID:+17325309808 t DURATION (mm-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 9 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:02pm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813.415 

Page 13 of 16 

teach or suggest those features. 

·+17325309808 T-699 P.013/016 F-878 

In general, Manda! teaches control of devices on a network using policies. 

Specifically, Manda I discloses a system that allows an operator to specify a policy for 

controlling a group of devices. (Manda!, Abstract) .. In general, Robinson discloses a 

network management framework for monitoring network-level concepts of routes and 

paths. As disclosed in Robinson, a route and path management system includes a data 

collector for collecting data from individual network elements, a management server for 

processing the collected data into manageable route and path objects, and a graphical 

user interface for allowing a user to manage and monitor routes and paths. (Robinson, 

Abstract). 

Mandal and Robinson, however, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons 

· described in Applicants' response of December 22, 2006 to the Office Action dated 

September 26, 2006, as well as in Applicants' response of May 2. 2007 to the Office 

Action dated February 8, 2007, fail to teach or suggest at least the features of 

monitoring the rate of change of usage of resources at one or more nodes and reporting 

to a centralized management station of the network when the rate of change of the 

· usage.of the resources of one of the nodes exceeds a threshold. 

In the present Office Action, the Examiner asserts that "Mandal describes a 

policy in which a network management system should allow no more than 30% (i.e., a 

threshold) of total bandwidth for video traffic transmission which depends on time. On 

col. 7, lines 29-67 Mandal describes the implementation of policies to control the flow of 

packets (i.e., traffic) with respect to time across the network. Therefore in order to 

implement such policy it has to monitor at periodic times (col. 6, lines 1-27} the rate of 

change of a parameter against a certain threshold." (Office Action. Pg. 7). Applicants 

respectfully disagree. 

Applicants respectfully maintain that Mand al does not teach a rate of change of 

usage of a resource. Rather, Manda! teaches a policy in which a ~ of a resource is 

compared against a threshold. As taught in Manda!, the resource that is monitored is 

the percentage of available bandwidth that is used for video traffic. Mandal does not 

teach a policy in which a rate of change of the resource {percentage of video traffic) is 

compared to a threshold; rather, Manda! teaches a policy in which the current value of 

591156-1 

PAGE 13116 * RCVD AT 9/1712007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Da~ight Time]' SVR:USPTO-EFXRF·314' ONIS:2738300' CSID:+17325309808' DURATION (mm-ss):04•50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 10 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:02pm From-Moser, Pattsrscn & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813.415 

Page 14 of 16 

+17325309808 T-699 P.014/016 F-878 

the resource (percentage of video traffic) is compared to a threshold. As such, a value 

of the usage of a resource, as taught in Mandal, is not a rate of change of usage of a 

resource, as claimed in Applicants' claim 10. 

Applicants note that differences between Mandal and Applicants' claim 7 may be 

better understood with respect to an example. As taught in Mandal, the current value of 

the percentage of video traffic is measured and compared to a threshold. For example, 

assume that a current value of the percentage of video traffic is measured to be 25%, 

and that this measured value is compared to a threshold (e.g., 30%). This measurement 

of a value of the current percentage of video traffic simply does not teach or suggest a 

rate at which the percentage of video traffic changes. For example, assume that over 

the last 10 seconds, the percentage of video traffic has increased from 10% to 40%. 

This example corresponds to a rate of change of the usage of the resource (e.g., in this 

example, the percentage of video traffic} of 4% per seconq. Thus, from this example, it 

is clear that moi:iitoring a value of usage of a resource. as taught in Mandal, does not 

teach or suggest monitoring a rate of change of usage of a resource, as claimed in 

Applicants' claim 7. 

In other words, as taught in Manda!, an instantaneous value of the usage of a 

resource is measured. An instantaneous value of the usage of a resource, as taught in 

Manda!, is simply not a rate of change of the usage of a resource, as claimed in 

Applicants' claim 7. A rate of change is clearly measured using a time inteival, or some 

other Interval by which rate of change may be measured. There is no time interval in 

Mandal. Mandal is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of monitoring any rate of 

change. As such, since Manda! fails to teach or suggest a rate of change, Mandal must 

also fail to teach or suggest a rate of change of usage of a resource, as claimed in 

Applicants' claim 7. 

Thus, since Mandal and Robinson each fail to teach or suggest a rate of change 

of the usage of resources, any permissible combination of Manda! and Robinson must 

also fail to teach or suggest a rate of change of the usage of resources. Thus, Manda! 

and Robinson, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest Applicants' claim 7. as a 

whole. 

591156-1 

PAGE 14116 * RCVD AT 911712007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Daylight rimeJ I SVR:USPTO-EFXRF,3/4 ~ DNIS:2738300 * CSID:+17325309808 * DURATION (mm-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 11 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:03pm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 15 of 16 

+17325309808 T-699 P.015/016 F-878 

RECEIVED 

CENTRAL FAX CENTER 

SEP 17 2007 

Therefore, independent claim 7 is patentable over Manda! and Robinson and. 

thus, fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and is patentable thereunder. 

Similarly, independent claim 8 recites features similar to the features of claim 7. 

Namely, independent claim 8 also includes the feature of a rate of change of the usage 

of resources. As such, for at least the same reasons discussed herein with respect to 

claim 7, independent claim 8 also is patentable over Mandal and Robinson and, thus, 

fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and is patentable thereunder. 

Claims 11, 12 and 14 depend directly from independent claim 8 and recite 

additional limitations therefor. Therefore, dependent claims 11, 12 and 1 also are not 

obvious Manda! and Robinson, and, thus, fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 

§103 and is patentable thereunder. 

Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

SECONDARY REFERENCES 

The secondary references made of record are noted. However, it is believed that 

the secondary references are no more pertinent to Applicants' disclosure than the 

primary references cited in the Office Action. Therefore, Applicants believe that a 

detailed discussion of the secondary references is not necessary for a full and complete 

response to this Office Action. 

591156-1 

PAGE 15116 • RCVD AT 911712007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Da~ight rimeJ • SVR:USPTO·EFXRF,3/4 • DNIS:2738300 • CSID:+17325309808 • DURATION (mm-ss):04-50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 12 of 13
Sep-17-2007 05:03pm From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ +17325309808 T-699 P.016/016 F-878 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 16 of 16 

CONCLUSION 

RECElVl;D 

CENTRAL F/dC CENTER 

SEP 17 2007 

Thus, Applicants submit that all of the claims presently in the application are nonobvious and are patentable under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §103. Accordingly, both 

reconsideration of this application and its swift passage to issue are earnestly solicited. 

If, however, the Examiner believes that there are any unresolved issues requiring 

adverse final action in any of the claims now pending in the application, it ls requested 

that the Examiner telephone Michael Bentley or Eamon J. Wall at {732) 530-9404 so 

that appropriate arrangements can be made for resolving such issues as expeditiously 

as possible. 

Dated: ·?/2/47 

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP 

595 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 100 

Shrewsbury, New Jersey 07702 

Telephone: 732-530-9404 

Facsimile: 732-530-9808 

591156-1 

Respectfully submitted, 

Eamon J. Wall 

Registration No. 39,414 

Attorney for Applicant 

PAGE 16/16 a RCVD AT 9/17/2007 5:00:59 PM ~astern Da~ight Time] 1 SVR:USPTO•EFXRF-314' DNIS:2738300 a CSID:+17325309808 i DURATION {mm-ss):04,50 

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-16 Filed 03/17/21 Page 13 of 13