Appeal Number: 2006-2502
Application Number: 09/768,434
for the simple reason that the authorization for users is frequently revoked.
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Challener.
Claims 4 through 7, 11, 12 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Challener and Colligan.
The appellants repeat the same arguments regarding the definition of a service
tag, the validation of the tag and the use of a second server to validate the tag that
they presented, supra, and we find the argument unpersuasive for the same reasons
we stated along the with the original arguments. (Br. 17).
Claim 5 is the only claim that specifies that the location of the tag is in the
BIOS, and a feature the appellants argue Challener fails to show. However,
Colligan describes the use of XBIOS calls to access the tag. A person of ordinary
skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the presence of the tag within
the BIOS along with the calls that were used for its access. We note that an
XBIOS is a term of art denoting an extended BIOS, and is therefore a species of
the genus BIOS.
Finally, the appellants argue there is no reason to combine Challener and
Colligan (Br. 18-21). We note that Colligan on p. 6 lines 16-19 provide the
motivation for the combination as a means for restricting the use of licensed
software to a unique computer on systems such as Challener’s. Therefore, we find
the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 4 through 7, 11, 12,
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Challener and Colligan.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013