Application No. 09/304,644 Appeal No. 2004-0887 additional ID verification at the information terminal by the user and, consequently, is excluded by the appellants’ claims 81- 93. The examiner states that “[t]he Holmes reference was cited as evidence that at the time of [the] invention artisans of ordinary skill in the art were well aware that computer programs, known to be stored and distributed by way of computer readable mediums such as floppy disks, see column 2, lines 14-18, were increasingly being transmitted over computer networks, col. 2, lines 21-23)” (answer, page 5). The examiner does not rely upon Holmes, or upon Klingman, van Schyndel or Cox, for any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiencies in Löfberg. Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 81-93. Claim 94 Löfberg discloses a method for transmitting a coded information signal from a signal source to a signal receiver at which the information signal is decoded, and teaches that the method is applicable to the protection of software for personal computers (col. 1, lines 7-10 and 24-27; col. 4, lines 1-15). Holmes teaches that it was known in the art to protect software files copied from one computer to another in a network (col. 2, lines 17-23). The appellants present no argument that Löfberg and Holmes would have failed to fairly suggest, to one of ordinary skill in the art, sending encoded digital content from a computer to a 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007