Applicant’s arguments filed for claims 1-5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

 As per arguments per claims 1 and 3, applicant argues:

 1.  Ellis does not show a Home Network Server. Ellis’s server 2 is part of the Internet Service Provider’s equipment and is not in the Subscriber’s home.

    As per section [0014] in the application, applicant states: A Home Network Server is used in a home to network various clients such as PCs, sensors, actuators, and other devices. It also provides the Internet connection to the various client devices in the Home Network. Ellis does show a Home network server (Figure 2 item 2) and it does provide a Internet connection to various client devices (Figure 2 item 3) As far as the subscriber’s home, the Home network server receives the service from the PC. (Col 7 lines 46-4 7) When a device receives a service, is interpreted by the examiner to mean “subscribing” to a service.
 

 2.  As such, its computing resources are not the resources being traded by the PC User for something of value such as Internet access. Instead, it is the resources of PC I which are being traded.

    The Home Network Server (2) provides the services to the client, which is interpreted as something of value. Per the claim, “something is value” in claims 1 and 3

 
Application/Control Number: 09/947,801      Page 3
Art Unit: 2141

is interpreted by the examiner as very broad and a variety of subject matter can read on this limitation. Applicant needs to be clear as claiming what the invention is.
 

 3.  Ellis’s financial arrangement requires that the PC User and the Network Provider be different entities.

    In response to applicant’s argument that the references fall to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., financial arrangement and PC User and network provider being separate entities) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As described above in section 1 of claims I and 3, PC user and network provider are separate entities.
 

 4.  The PCs shown in Ellis Figure 9 are not home network client devices. They are networked PCs participating in parallel processing. Applicant’s invention does not use the resources of the Home Network clients for its distributed computing agreement. It uses the resources of Home Network Server 101. 

    The networked PC uses the services provided by the network, wherein network includes the Home Network Server (Col 8 lines 46-4 7, Figure 2 item 2)
 

As per claims 2 and 4, applicant argues:

 
Application/Control Number: 09/947,801      Page 4
Art Unit: 2141

 As per claims 2 and 4, Ellis discloses a distributed computing system further
comprising:

 a first firewall between said Internet connection and said home network server; Ellis teaches the concept of supporting the structure of inse4ing a firewall between the internet and home network server to provide security for the host PC
against instruction by outside hackers. (Col 19 lines 25-32)

(b) a second firewall to prevent unwanted interactions between said access to the resources of said home network server that would otherwise be unused and said home network sewer. (Col 16 lines 33-42, Col 19 lines 19-25)

While both Ellis and Applicant recognize the value of firewalls, Ellis does not use a home network server. Column 19 lines 25-32, Column 16 lines 33-42, and Column 19 lines 25-32 refer to Ellis Figure 10A - Figure 10I, all of which show Server 2 and Internet 3, which as been previously discussed, is part of the Network Provider, not Subscriber’s
PC 1.

Furthermore, Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 4 is dependent on Claim 3. Applicant believes Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 and Claim 3 has been traversed, so that Examiner’s rejection of Claim 2 and Claim 4 has likewise been traversed.
 

    As mentioned above, Ellis discloses a home server. (Figure 2 item 2) As far as the subscriber’s home, the Home network server receives the service from the PC. (Col
 

 
Application/Control Number: 09/947,801      Page 5
Art Unit: 2141

7 lines 46 - 47) When a device receives a service, is interpreted by the examiner to mean “subscribing” to a service.  Per the discussions above, Ellis disclosure meet the limitations as specified in claims 1-4.
 

As per claim 5: Claim 5 includes the same subject matter as claims 1-4, and the
above discussion is applied to claim 5.
 

As per part 1, applicant argues: The definition of Server as would have been commonly understood at the time Ellis’s invention was made. As per part 2, applicant argues: Ellis uses the terms Server and Network Server to mean the same thing. As per part 3, Ellis makes a clear distinction between the PC User and the Network Provider (also called Internet Service Provider) As per part 4: Ellis Server 2 is part of the Network Provider, not the PC user. As per part 5: Ellis has drawn a distinction between the Network Provider and the Internet. The applicant has not drawn such a distinction.
 

    As per parts 1-5, Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.

Application/Control Number: 09/947,80 1      Page 6
Art Unit: 2141

Part 6: Applicant acted as his own lexicographer to define Home Network Server. Part 7: Applicant’s Home Network Server is distinctly different from Ellis’s Server (Network Server).
 

    As per parts 6 and 7, As per section [0014] in the application, applicant states: A Home Network Server is used in a home to network various clients such as PCs, sensors, actuators, and other devices. It also provides the Internet connection to the various client devices in the Home Network. Ellis does show a Home network server (Figure 2 item 2) and it does provide a Internet connection to various client devices (Figure 2 item 3) As far as the subscriber’s home, the Home network server receives the service from the PC. (Col 7 lines 46-4 7) When a device receives a service, is interpreted by the examiner to mean “subscribing” to a service.
 

 As per part 8, applicant argues: Ellis’s preference for a network architecture that physically clusters PCs together teaches away from Applicant’s invention which teaches the value of having Home Network Servers located in widely different geographic areas in order to distribute the load on electric utility companies.

    In response to applicant’s argument that the references fall to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., distributing load on electric utility companies, different geographic regions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
 

Application/Control Number: 09/947,801      Page 7
Art Unit: 2141

    The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent
granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section
351 (a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.

Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ellis (US 6,167,428).
 

 As per claims 1 and 3, Ellis discloses a distributed computing system comprising:

 (a) a home network server in a subscriber’s home; (Col 7 lines 66-67, Col 8 lines 1-14 and 23-28)

 (b) one or more home network client devices; (Col 13 lines 8-29, Figure 9)

 (c) an Internet connection; (Col 8 lines 7-10, Col 13 lines 4-7, Figure 1 item 3)  whereby the subscriber receives something of value in return for access to the resources of said home network server that would otherwise be unused. (Col 7 lines 38-48, Col 10 lines 1-6)

 As per claims 2 and 4, Ellis discloses a distributed computing system further comprising:
 

Application/Control Number: 09/947,801      Page 8
Art Unit: 2141
 

 (a) a first firewall between said Internet connection and said home network server; Ellis teaches the concept of supporting the structure of inserting a firewall between the internet and home network server to provide security for the host PC against instruction by outside hackers. (Col 19 lines 25-32)

 (b) a second firewall to prevent unwanted interactions between said access to the resources of said home network server that would otherwise be unused and said home network server. (00116 lines 33-42, 00119 lines 19-25)

 As per claim 5, Ellis discloses A method for providing a distributed computing system comprising the steps of:

(a)  providing a home network server in a subscriber’s home; (Col 7 lines 66-67, Col 8 lines 1-14 and 23-28)

(b)  providing one or more home network client devices; (Col 13 lines 8-29, Figure 9)

(c)  providing an Internet connection; (Col 8 lines 7-10, Col 13 lines 4-7, Figure 1 item 3)

(d)  providing access to the resources of said home network server that would otherwise be unused; (Col 11 lines 55-61, Col 12 lines 17-26, Figure 5)

(e)  providing a first firewall between said Internet connection and said home network Server; Ellis teaches the concept of supporting the structure of inserting a firewall between the internet and home network server to provide security for the host PC against instruction by outside hackers. (Col 19 lines 25-32)

(f)  providing a second firewall to prevent unwanted interactions between said access to the resources of said home network that would otherwise be unused and said home

 
Application/ControlNumber:09/947,801      Page9
Art Unit: 2141

network server; (Col 16 lines 33-42, Col 19 lines 19-25) whereby the subscriber receives something of value in return for said access to the resources of said home network server that would otherwise be unused. (Col 7 lines 38-48, Col 10 lines 1-6)

 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).

 A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Kraft et al. (US 6,112,225) discloses a system for processing a computer executable task by dividing it into subtasks and distributing the subtasks to remote computer on a network. Crosetto (US 5,590,284) discloses a parallel processing data network of master and slave transputers controlled by a serial control network. Ellis (US 2001/0011294 and US 2001/0013049) discloses a distributed
 
Application/Control Number: 09/947,801     Page 10
Art Unit: 2141

processing system that performs parallel processing among various computers across a network.

 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chirag R. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-7966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from
7:30AM to 4:00PM.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal Dharia, can be reached on (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.

Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
 
 
 

(signed)

RUPAL DHARIA
SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER