Appeal No. 95-3919
Application No. 07/907,934
while the licensed product is in use. For this reason, the
obviousness rejection of claims 113 through 131 is reversed.
With respect to claim 132, appellant argues (Brief, page
25) that it “includes means for generating a request datagram
including an address of a licensee on a communication network,
sending the reply datagram to the address contained in the
request datagram, and denying access to the licensed product
if an authorization datagram is not received.” Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, Katznelson operates
in exactly the same manner. The file use request 12 includes
an address (i.e., unit ID) of the terminal 11, and the reply
to the terminal 11 includes that same unit ID. If an
authorization is not received from terminal 10, then terminal
11 is denied access to the encrypted licensed product on the
CD-ROM. Appellant’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
arguments are without merit because the specification is
devoid of any specific structure. The obviousness rejection
of claim 132 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claim 133 is reversed
because Katznelson does not send requests “at regular time
intervals during use” of any product on CD-ROM.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007