Appeal No. 2003-1329
Application No. 09/131,386
a part of the entire work or the sections the rights correspond
to (col. 11, lines 45-53) and are not replaced by a second set.
We further find Appellants’ arguments differentiating the
claimed invention and the teachings of Stefik based on the lack
of suggestion for a specific modification of the reference, to be
persuasive. As discussed above, what the Examiner characterizes
in Stefik as the suggestion for including a logic conversion
software generator (answer, page 8), is actually a general
suggestion for implementing a usage rights scheme for preventing
unauthorized attempts to use licensed products. In fact, the
desire for preventing piracy does not suggest any specific
modification to Stefik that would have made one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the disclosed usage rights scheme to
encompass the claimed logic conversion software generator that
includes a second logic scheme. In that regard, Stefik merely
attaches usage rights to the digital work which are permanent and
cannot be replaced by a second logic scheme. Thus, Stefik does
not disclose or suggest the recited features of claim 11, nor
the other independent claim 22 which recites the steps of
generating and transmitting logic conversion software and
converting the first logic scheme into the second logic scheme.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007