Application Serial No. 09/947,801

Filed: 09/06/2001

For: DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEM

Examiner: Chirag R. Patel   Art Unit: 2141

In re Application of   Jed Margolin
                                3570 Pleasant Echo Dr.
                                San Jose, CA  95148-1916
                                Phone: 408-238-4564

Telephone Interview Date: 8/25/2005

Participants:   SPE Rupal Dharia,
                       Examiner Chirag R. Patel,
                       Primary Examiner Frantz Jean, Group 2151,
                       pro se Applicant Jed Margolin
 

Mail Stop AF
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
 

Sir,

The following Interview Summary is submitted as required by Rule 713.04 Substance of Interview Must Be Made of Record [R-2] - 700 Examination of Applications paragraph (b).
 
 

The main issues to be discussed were:
 

1.  What is a Subscriber?

2.  Whether my Home Network Server 101 is the same as Ellis’ Network Server NS2.

I explained that my application clearly shows that a Subscriber is a person, nominally the owner of the Home Network Server, and that common usage of the term Subscriber indicates that a Subscriber is a person. I read from the dictionary definitions of Subscribe as provided in my Informal AF Response July 25, 2005 which is incorporated in my Summary of Telephone Interview Date: 8/5/2005 and which is listed in the File Wrapper as 8/12/2005   Miscellaneous Incoming Letter.

SPE Dharia insisted that a Subscriber can be a device such as a computer, and claims that his computer regularly subscribes to different newsletters. I asked if his computer did this on its own or if he had instructed it to do this but I did not get an answer.

That brought up the subject of defining other words, such as home. SPE Dharia asserts that his office at the Patent Office is his home even though he owns a house.

I explained that when words can be defined as being anything the user wishes, then words have no meaning at all.
 

I pointed out that in Ellis Figure 1, Meter M5 is located between PC1 and Network Server NS2 and that in Ellis Figure 2 Meter M7 is located between PC1 and Network Server NS2.

I explained that, according to Ellis, it is the computing resources of PC1 that are used for distributed computing for which Ellis receives payment of one kind or another. Network Server NS2 is part of the ISP’s equipment and is therefore not a Home Network Server 101 as taught in my application.

I asked SPE Dharia several times which device’s computing resources were used in Ellis for distributed computing for which Ellis received payment of one kind or another. SPE Dharia consistently gave evasive answers and finally announced he had already answered my question. I asked SPE Dharia why Ellis would put a meter for measuring the flow of network resources between PC1 and Server NS2 if NS2 was Ellis’ own server. SPE Dharia said, “I don’t know.”

If Ellis’ Network Server NS2 were the same as my Home Network Server 101, then Ellis’s financial arrangement would be with himself. If Ellis’ Network Server NS2 was part of the ISP equipment, then Ellis would have persuaded the ISP to pay him for using their own equipment. Either interpretation would render Ellis’ patent invalid.

I also pointed out that Ellis’ specification can be interpreted as including Distributed Computing using organic computers.

1.  The human brain is frequently considered an organic computer.

2.  The three Examiners participating in this Interview were working together on a task.

3.  They are paid for performing that task.

4.  They were using their knowledge and experience to determine the validity of the information being discussed (Ellis’ Firewall).

Therefore, they were infringing Ellis’ patent.

SPE Dharia agreed!

I informed him that such human activities had been going on for quite some time, long before Ellis filed his Application, and therefore constituted prior art to invalidate Ellis’s patent.

However, since issued patents are presumed to be valid, such an interpretation is not permissible, along with the other overly broad interpretations he had given to Ellis.

SPE Jean brought up the subject of my Claims, but since SPE Dharia insisted that my Home Network Server was the same as Ellis’ Network Server NS2 there was obviously no point in discussing the claims.

Examiner Patel was silent except for the beginning (“Hello”) and the end (“Bye”) of the Interview.
 

Since SPE Dharia insists on defining all words as he sees fit no agreement on any issue was reached nor was any agreement possible because a home network server in a subscriber’s home may comprise:

said SPE Dharia (an organic computer);

a PC (a subscriber) that selects at its own discretion newsletters for said SPE Dharia to read;

SPE Dharia’s office at the Patent Office (which he considers his home);

conferring with colleagues on cases (distributed computing);

deciding on the relevance of the information being discussed (firewall); and

getting paid for it (financial arrangement).

While it is commendable for a Boss to support an employee even when he has made a mistake, this is ridiculous.
 

Respectfully submitted,

Jed Margolin
pro se inventor
August 25, 2005

Jed Margolin
3570 Pleasant Echo Dr.
San Jose, CA  95148-1916
(408) 238-4564
______________________________________________________________________

I hereby certify that this correspondence is being faxed to the Central Fax Number
571-273-8300.

Date:  August 25, 2005

Inventor's Signature:     _____________________________________