Appeal No. 2002-0349
Application No. 09/442,352
appropriate distribution channels” and that “broadcast channels”
may be employed, appellant argues that neither of these
approaches constitutes a “telephone communication network
utilizing bidirectional communication” as in the instant claimed
invention.
With regard to Hornbuckle and Ananda, appellant recognizes
that both of these references address the rental of software but
argues that no degraded version of the software is provided,
concluding that there would have been no motivation to modify
Stringer. Appellant contends that the secondary references
“teach away” from the instant claimed subject matter and
represent a failure of others working in the field, thus
indicating nonobviousness. In particular, appellant points out
that Hornbuckle does not recognize that it is desirable to
provide a customer with anything less than a full version of the
software, but provides a pay-on-usage system analogous to pay-
for-view television. Appellant further points out that Ananda
merely discloses a user at a remote computer downloading software
for executing “the application software on the remote computer”
only while electronically connected to the central rental
facility (see brief-page 11).
We will sustain the examiner’s rejections of the claims
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007