Application No. 09/304,644
Appeal No. 2004-0887
additional ID verification at the information terminal by the
user and, consequently, is excluded by the appellants’ claims 81-
93.
The examiner states that “[t]he Holmes reference was cited
as evidence that at the time of [the] invention artisans of
ordinary skill in the art were well aware that computer programs,
known to be stored and distributed by way of computer readable
mediums such as floppy disks, see column 2, lines 14-18, were
increasingly being transmitted over computer networks, col. 2,
lines 21-23)” (answer, page 5). The examiner does not rely upon
Holmes, or upon Klingman, van Schyndel or Cox, for any disclosure
that remedies the above-discussed deficiencies in Löfberg.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 81-93.
Claim 94
Löfberg discloses a method for transmitting a coded
information signal from a signal source to a signal receiver at
which the information signal is decoded, and teaches that the
method is applicable to the protection of software for personal
computers (col. 1, lines 7-10 and 24-27; col. 4, lines 1-15).
Holmes teaches that it was known in the art to protect software
files copied from one computer to another in a network (col. 2,
lines 17-23).
The appellants present no argument that Löfberg and Holmes
would have failed to fairly suggest, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, sending encoded digital content from a computer to a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007