Joint Appendix One

Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2:10-cv-07678-JFW-DTB Document 65-1 Filed 10/07/11 Page 4 of 36 Page ID
#:1281
Nanoptix's Alleged Uncontroverted Response in Opposition
Facts
5. During the prosecution of the '855
Patent, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("PTO") rejected all
of file pending claims of the '855
application in its first office action dated
March 21, 2007.
6. The March 21, 2007 rejection was
based upon the Rowe '320 patent and, in
some instances, a combination of the
Rowe '320 patent and other prior art.
7. Future Logic responded to the
March 21st rejection on July 23, 2007.
In both the interview summary and the
response, FutureLogic emphasized the
dual port aspect of its alleged invention.
8. On October 16, 2007, the PTO
finally rejected all claims of the '855
Patent application. In this second
rejection, the PTO relied upon the Rowe
'320 patent and the Rowe '527 published
application and, in some instances,
combined the Rowe references with
other prior art.
-A0390-
-4-
Rounds Decl. 1 4, Exhibit 3 at p. 92.
Undisputed.
Rounds Decl. 1 4, Exhibit 3, at pp. 93-
96, 11 5-7, 9.
Undisputed.
Rotmds Decl. 1 4, Exlfibit 3 at pp. 86-
91.
Disputed. FutureLogic stated, for
example, flint "Applicant's main
communication port couples a
promotional ginning printer to a gaming
machine controller and a separate
auxiliary communication port couples
the gaming promotional printer to a
promotional controller." The phrase
"dual port aspect" is not used.
See Rounds Decl. 1 4, Exhibit 3 at pp.
86-91.
Rounds Decl. 1 4, Exhibit 3 at pp. 80-
85.
Undisputed
[:IJTUREI,OGIC'S S] ,'MT OF ISSUES OF MA'I:C.RIAL FACT IN
OPP TO NANOPTIX'S MOTION
2: I 0-CV-07678-JFW-DTB
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I