Appeal No. 96-1620
Application No. 07/938,288
We have carefully reviewed the evidence before us and,
based on such a review, we conclude that the claimed subject
matter would not have been obvious, within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. ' 103, based on the evidence provided by the Durst
and Kurihara references.
With regard to claims 1 through 8, the examiner
contends that Durst discloses the claimed subject matter but
for the data in the ROM being “microprocessor ID data,” as
claimed. However, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious
to include a ROM for storing a microprocessor ID
data as claimed because the use of a ROM for
storing the microprocessor identification data
could help Durst to determine the authorized
software for the correct microprocessor type in
his computer system, and because Durst did suggest
the need for storing the microprocessor
identification data…in a memory [answer, pages 3-
4].
We find that a careful reading of Durst suggests that,
at best, Durst provides for an indirect identification of a
processor through characteristics of the computer system
such as ROM size, bus size, clock speed, etc. However, this
is not a direct identification of the particular processor
in use in a computer system nor is the identification
unique. As pointed out by Durst, at column 16, lines 43-47,
two different computer systems which otherwise
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007