Appeal No. 97-3665
Application 08/280,039
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection
of claims 1-5, 7-10, 14, 17-19, 21, and 23-38.
For claims 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 39, 40 and 41,
the appellant makes separate arguments urging their
patentability. We agree with the appellant with respect to
claims 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 40, and 41. The examiner has
not addressed the issues raised by the appellant.
With respect to claims 11, 20, and 39, however, the
appellant’s arguments are without merit. As for claim 11, in
column 9, lines 18-24 of Stringer, it is described that the
denaturing process uses an encryption algorithm and that to
enable the product a special enable program is activated by a
code number. The code constitutes a decryption key.
Evidently, the code is transmitted to the user upon making a
purchase. See column 4, lines 36-40. As for claim 20, note
that in Stringer an access code is transmitted to the user
only when a credit card number is provided by a telephone call
to make a purchase. See column 4, lines 33-40. That
satisfies the requirement of determining if royalty payment
has been received. As for claim 39, we have already discussed
above how the wireless broadcasting of Stringer constitutes a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007