Appeal No. 2006-0799
Application No. 09/795,990
digital content for each end user and characteristics for each element of the personal
digital content” (col. 3, lines 15-18).
The appellants argue that only Cook’s entertainment programming service
provider, not the users, is required to obtain a license from copyright owners (brief, page
6).
The servers of both the appellants and Cook maintain an index of digital content.
The digital content in the appellants’ index is licensed tracks, whereas the digital
content in Cook’s index is tracks generally. Human minds are aware that the tracks in
the appellants’ index are licensed, but that awareness does not distinguish the index of
those tracks from an index of the same tracks, or other tracks, that are not licensed.
Consequently, the claim requirement that the digital content is licensed does not
patentably distinguish the appellants’ system or method over those of Cook.
Thus, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 15 and dependent claims 5-10, 21, 22 and 25-28 which, the appellants
state (brief, page 11), stand or fall therewith. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of
those claims.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the appellants argue that Cook does not indicate that
a user is able to register a license for digital content previously purchased by the user
(brief, page 12). The examiner argues that this claim requirement is disclosed in Cook’s
figure 1 and associated text (answer, page 4). The examiner, however, does not point
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007