Appeal No. 2002-0617
Application 08/942,743
scheme that said response means in fact has access to said
private keying material and thereby preventing unauthorized
use of the software, wherein said challenge means is
embedded in said protected item of software.
Similarly, we note that independent claim 18 (as well as its
dependent claim 25) recites:
A method for protecting an item of software, comprising the
steps of: associating challenge means with said protected
item of software, and accessing private keying material by a
response means, wherein a) the challenge means has no access
to the private keying material, b) the challenge means
prohibiting a customer from using at least some of said
items of software unless the challenge means knows that said
probabilistic proof is successful.
Thus, we agree that the claims are of such scope to include
protecting an item of software in which the challenge means is
embedded in the software which has no access to the private
keying material.
We find that Kanevsky does not address protection of the
software. Kanevsky relates to authorizing access to banking or
credit accounts, pay per view video services or the alike. See
column 1, lines 10 through 23 of Kanevsky. Kanevsky teaches that
figure 1 is a functional block diagram of the secure access
control system in a service provider network. See column 2,
lines 40 through 44. Kanevsky teaches that upon determining that
the user is an authorized individual, the authentication system
10 forwards the input data to the requested service provider
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007