Appeal No. 95-3919
Application No. 07/907,934
The obviousness rejection of claims 183 through 185 is
reversed because terminal 11 in Katznelson does not transmit
requests “at periodic intervals” to terminal 10.
The obviousness rejection of claims 186 and 187 is
reversed because terminal 11 in Katznelson does not generate
requests “at regular time intervals,” and because Katznelson
does not have a license control system that counts requests
“as an indication of the use” of a product from CD-ROM.
The obviousness rejection of claims 188 through 200 is
reversed because the terminal 11 in Katznelson does not send a
request to terminal 10 while a product from CD-ROM “is in
use.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 201 is sustained
because the file use request 12 includes an address (i.e.,
unit ID) of the terminal 11, and because appellant’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, arguments (Brief, page 47) are without
merit since the specification is devoid of any specific
structure.
For all of the reasons expressed supra in connection with
claim 170, the obviousness rejection of claim 202 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 204 is sustained
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007