Appeal Number: 2006-2502
Application Number: 09/768,434
Claims 1, 14 through 18 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Challener.
Challener describes a data processing system and method for permitting only
preregistered client hardware to access a service executing on a remote server
computer system, and more particularly by comparing a log-in token to an access
registry identifying registered hardware. (Col. 1 lines 10-18).
The appellants argue with respect to independent claims 1 and 14 that the value
of a service tag uniquely identifies a computer system and is installed in the basic
input/output system (BIOS) of a computer (Br. 4). The examiner responds that the
appellants are reading limitations into the claims. (Answer 10). We note that
nothing in claim 1 or 14 limits the location of a service tag to the BIOS. The
appellants argue that the phrase “service tag” is a term of art, requiring it to reside
in the BIOS (Reply Br. 2), but provide no evidence to support this assertion, and
we therefore decline the invitation to treat it as such. Although claim 14 does
require the service tag reside in non-volatile memory, this is met by the access
registry of Challener.
The appellants further argue that Challener requires multiple log-ins. (Br. 7).
We note that nothing in the claimed subject matter limits the claims to a certain
number of log-ins. The appellants then argue that Challener does not describe
determining at the server if the service tag is valid and generating a message if so
valid, or valid service tags corresponding to computer systems that purchased a
benefit. (Br. 11-12). We note that Challener states
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013