Appeal No. 2006-0799
Application No. 09/795,990
out how those portions of Cook indicate that Cook’s system or method enables a user to
register a license for digital content. Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims 2
and 16 and their dependent claims 3, 4, 17 and 23.
The appellants argue that Cook does not disclose enabling transmission of digital
content to a network node address different from the user network node in accordance
with a destination node address received from the user as required by claims 11 and 29
(brief, page 13). The examiner argues that Cook discloses that claim requirement at
column 6, lines 40-50 (answer, pages 5-6). That portion of Cook discloses that Cook’s
player can be implemented not only on a personal computer, but on any Internet
enabled appliance. It does not disclose what is required by the appellants’ claims 11
and 29. Hence, we reverse the rejection of those claims.
Rejection of claims 12-14, 18-20 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cook in view of Krishnan
The portion of Krishnan relied upon by the examiner discloses a system for
digital commerce comprising payment processing functions (309) used by a licensing
and purchasing broker (307) to charge a customer and to credit the appropriate supplier
when the customer requests a purchase (col. 9, lines 11-16).
With respect to claims 12, 18, 20 and 24, the appellants argue that Krishnan
does not remedy the deficiency in Cook as to claims 1 and 15 (brief, page 14). As
discussed above regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 15, Cook is not deficient as to
those claims. Consequently, we affirm the rejection of claims 12, 18, 20 and 24.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007