Application No. 09/304,644
Appeal No. 2004-0887
lines 19-29). The examiner, therefore, has not established that
Löfberg meets the appellants’ claim requirement of a decoding
program having ID information representing the information
terminal or user embedded therein.
The examiner argues (answer, pages 4-5):
The Löfberg patent also discloses that the
decoding program disclosed therein functions to decode
the encoded digital content and produce decoded digital
content having the ID information imprinted therein
without additional ID verification being performed at
the information terminal. See column 13, lines 19-29,
which describe that the decoding information and ID are
transferred to the device AU of the user. There is no
portion in that description that any additional ID
verification is performed at the information terminal
by the user thereof. Column 13, lines 63-68 describes
that the user information terminal may be supplemented
by a user ID input, but that is not a teaching away
from the earlier embodiment disclosed. Column 14,
lines 10-14 also describes that the whole of user ID
input may be completely dispensed with by using an
“active” card, i.e. a smart card.
Löfberg discloses transferring, at the place of the user,
personal identification information and the decoding information
or key to decoder 25 (col. 13, lines 19-21). This transfer,
because it is a performance of ID verification at the information
terminal by the user in addition to any ID information that would
be embedded in the decoding program, is excluded by the
appellants’ claims 81-93. As for the examiner’s argument that
Löfberg discloses dispensing with the user ID input and, instead,
using an active card, Löfberg discloses that the active card
contains personal identification information (col. 4, lines 47-
54; col. 14, lines 51-58). Hence, the active card also provides
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007