Unrren States PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. ae SMSO ea ‘ora ‘omnor01e OnE 2000 Tor Twitter, Ine anes Aun: Legal = patents, RAVER, CHARLES 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103 Ts oe Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. ‘The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication PIOL-90A (Rev, 08107)UNITED STATEe PATENT AND TRADEMARIC OFFICE, a Trademark ce United State? DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER (THROPARTY REQUESTER'S 00» PONDENGE ADE RYAN ALLEY IP | POBOxa7 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22813 EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90014,072, PATENT NO, 9,088,532. ART UNIT 3992 Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)) Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)). PTOL-465 (Fiev.07-04)Application/Control Number: 90/014,072 Page 2 Art Unit: 3992 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION |.___Summary A Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) affecting claims 1-3, 8, 9, 13- 15, 17, 20 and 21 of US Patent 9,088,532 (hereinafter "the ‘532 Patent") is raised by the Request for reexamination filed 1/19/2018 by the Third Party Requester for the reasons set forth below. Reexamination has been requested of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, 20 and 21 of the ‘532 Patent. The ‘532 Patent issued 7/21/2015 based on US Patent Application Ser. No. 13/744,929, filed 1/18/2013. The ‘532 Patent is still enforceable. ll___Related Proceedings and Matters The '532 Patent under reexamination is not currently under open litigation. The ‘532 Patent is not currently subject to Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB”), As the instant ‘632 Patent is still pending, and no final decision has been made in any litigation, the instant claims in this proceeding will be given their "broadest reasonable interpretation” consistent with the Patent specification. Please see In re ‘Swanson, No. 07-1534 (Fed. Cir. 2008).