Appeal No. 2006-0799
Application No. 09/795,990
The appellants argue that Krishnan does not disclose a royalty payment manager
configured to authorize payment in response to a digital content registration
confirmation as required by claim 13, or authorizing payment upon registration of digital
content as required by claim 19 (brief, pages 13-14). The term “registration of digital
content” is sufficiently broad to encompass Cook’s indexing of digital content.
Krishnan’s disclosure of payment upon purchase (col. 9, lines 12-16) would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, authorizing payment when digital content is
added to Cook’s index. Hence, we affirm the rejection of claim 19. However,
the examiner’s argument that “Krishnan discloses a comprehensive license verification
mechanism that confirms the various parameters of a valid licenses prior to authorizing
access and thereafter making a corresponding payment to the licensing broker (figures
4, 11, 12 and associated text)” (answer, page 11) does not explain how Cook or
Krishnan discloses payment in response
to a digital content registration confirmation. Consequently,
we reverse the rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claim 14.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-11, 15-17, 21-23 and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
over Cook is affirmed as to claims 1, 5-10, 15, 21, 22 and 25-28, and reversed as to
claims 2-4, 11, 16, 17, 23 and 29. The rejection of claims 12-14, 18-20 and 24 under
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007