Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324
that would include records having been “tampered with.” When a stored license is
tampered with, it is corrupted. That is consistent with the way the term is used in
the Specification. FF 7. Accordingly, in claiming that the validation component
checks to see if the stored data is “corrupted,” it reads on Christiano’s checking to
see if the record has been “tampered with.”
Finally, Appellants submit that its validation component distinguishes from
that of Christiano because Christiano does not describe “periodically” checking
stored data to ensure that the data has not been corrupted. Appellants (Br. 5, ll. 16-
18) argue that one of ordinary skill reading the claim would construe
“periodically” as recited in the claim to mean at regular intervals. But the plain
meaning of the term “periodically” is from time to time. FF 8. Furthermore, the
specification does not define the term any more narrowly than the plain meaning
would give it. Appellants cite page 9, ll. 1-3, to argue that “the instant
specification teaches checking of license data with a fixed frequency (e.g., daily),
which is a periodic event.” Br. 5, ll. 21-23. However, what it actually says is:
“Validation component 140 can provide periodic (e.g., daily, after restoring
licenses from back-up …) validity checks on the license store 110 … .” The
Specification actually gives the term “periodic” a much broader definition; one
covering both checking at regular intervals (e.g., daily) and, as can be the case
when one restores licenses from back-up, from time to time. When given the
broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification as interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art, the claim encompasses a system comprising a validation
component which checks license data from time to time. Accordingly, in requiring
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013