Appeal No. 95-3919
Application No. 07/907,934
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with
claim 138, the obviousness rejection of claim 175 is
sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claim 176 is reversed
because the request from terminal 11 in Katznelson does not
include “data indicative of the number of processes at a
licensee’s site currently using” a licensed product.
The obviousness rejection of claim 177 is sustained
because appellant’s argument (Brief, page 41) that Katznelson
does not deny “use of the product when the reply denial . . .
is received” is in error.
The obviousness rejection of claim 178 is sustained
because appellant has grouped this claim with claim 169
(Brief, page 4).
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with
claims 150 through 152, the obviousness rejection of claim 179
is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 180 and 181 is
sustained because appellant has not presented any
patentability arguments for these claims.
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007