Appeal No. 96-1620
Application No. 07/938,288
might appear to be identical, and which may use
the very same microprocessor, may include ROMs
having different instruction sets which reflect
different versions of those ROMs.
Accordingly, Durst is interested in identifying computer
systems for the purpose of preventing a computer program
from being used by a computer system other than a designated
system and Durst’s “identification” of a microprocessor in a
computer system is not a unique identification since two
systems using the very same microprocessor may, in fact,
have different sized ROMs or different sized buses, etc.
In contrast, the instant claimed invention requires “a
read-only memory storing microprocessor ID data including
data fields that identify the microprocessor type.”
Therefore, the identification of the microprocessor in the
instant claimed invention is both direct and unique since
the ID data for that microprocessor is stored in the ROM.
The examiner contends [answer, page 9] that “microprocessor
ID data” does not necessarily mean “microprocessor ID” and
could include data such as bus size, clock speed, model,
etc. We disagree. Since the “microprocessor ID data” must
include “data fields that identify the microprocessor type,”
the ROM of the instant claimed invention has a specific data
field which specifically and uniquely identifies the
microprocessor type in use within the particular computer
system. This is not disclosed or suggested by Durst.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007