Appeal No. 2002-0617
Application 08/942,743
embeds it into a keyfile that is sent to the buyer and installed
by the buyer, where a probabilistic proof is carried out to
permit the buyer to use the software in which the buyer already
has in their possession. Appellants argue that neither Kanevsky
nor Menezes teaches or suggests to those skilled in the art to
the Appellants’ claimed software protection scheme. See pages 10
through 12 of Appellants’ brief.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be interpreted
as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We note that independent claim 1 (as well as claims 3, 4, 10
through 16, 37 and 41 through 46 due to their dependency on claim
1) recites:
computer system for preventing unauthorized use of software,
comprising: a protection mechanism for protecting software,
the protection mechanism including challenge means for
providing a challenge associated with a protected item of
software, . . . wherein: a) the challenge means has no
access to said private keying material; . . . c) the
challenge means includes means for prohibiting a customer
from using at least some of said item of software unless the
challenge means determines from said probabilistic proof
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007