Appeal No. 2005-1636
Application No. 09/726,272
With respect to claims 48, 60 and 72, which are argued as
a single group, appellant argues that Pettitt fails to teach the
claimed steps (brief, page 19). The examiner responds by
explaining how the collective teachings of Pettitt and Robinson
teach the claimed invention (answer, pages 21-22). Appellant
responds by repeating the argument from the brief (reply brief,
page 12).
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 48,
60 and 62. Pettitt teaches that the LCH 14 pays the provider a
royalty and debits the account of the distributor (column 5,
lines 29-36). In order for the provider to receive a royalty,
the provider must have transmitted a royalty amount for the
digital work provided. Although Pettitt does not specifically
recite that the royalty is “calculated” based on a “royalty
rate,” the artisan would have found it obvious to base the
royalty in Pettitt on a royalty rate. Although Pettitt discloses
debiting the account of the distributor, since the distributor
sends the digital work to the reseller (merchant), the
distributor would clearly collect a similar amount from the
reseller. We note that claim 48 does not recite which of the
various entities within the distribution system is performing the
claimed steps.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007