Ex Parte Mishra et al - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2005-2668                                                                                             
               Application No. 09/765,823                                                                                       

                                                       BACKGROUND                                                               
                      The invention relates generally to preventing theft of devices.  An appliance may                         
               determine its location, and may determine whether it has moved a distance or to a                                
               location which does not meet a local policy guideline.  The appliance may notify a                               
               central agency of such move, and the central agency may determine whether the move                               
               does not meet a remote policy guideline.  Representative claim 1 is reproduced below.                            
                      1.      An apparatus comprising:                                                                          
                              a functional unit;                                                                                
                              a location determination device;                                                                  
                              a local policy enforcement device coupled to the location determination                           
                      device and to the functional unit; and                                                                    
                              a communication interface coupled to the local policy enforcement device                          
                      to transmit to a central agency information related to a failure to meet a local                          
                      policy and to receive from the central agency an enablement signal if the                                 
                      information complies with a remote policy.                                                                
                      The examiner relies on the following references:                                                          
               Mansell et al. (Mansell)                     5,223,844                     Jun. 29, 1993                         
               Hertel                                       5,532,690                     Jul.    2, 1996                       
               Johnson et al. (Johnson)                     5,557,254                     Sep. 17, 1996                         
                      Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-20, 31-45, and 47-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                             
               as being unpatentable over Hertel and Johnson.                                                                   
                      Claims 4, 5, 10, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                     
               unpatentable over Hertel, Johnson, and Mansell.                                                                  
                                                              -2-                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007