Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324
This is an appeal from a decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4, 6-18,
20-33, and 35-43. 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6 (b) (2002).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants, in the Brief2, argue the claims as one group. Pursuant to the
rules, the Board selects representative claim 1 to decide the appeal. 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006). Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A license enforcement system, comprising:
a monitoring component that determines a current number (M) of
users logged on to an application under a license;
an enforcement component that dynamically takes corrective action if
M exceeds an authorized number (N) of users permitted under the license;
and
a validation component that periodically checks stored license data to
ensure that the data has not been corrupted.
The Examiner has finally rejected claims 1-4, 6-18, 20-33, and 35-43 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)3 as being anticipated by Christiano (U.S. Patent No.
5,671,412).
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Brief,” filed 3
January 2006) and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed 1 June 2006) and
Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply,” filed 1 August 2006).
3 Christiano issued on 23 September 1997. Accordingly, Christiano qualifies as
prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The first Office action (mailed 26 April 2005)
recited the rejection as under § 102(b), but the statement of the rejection in the
Answer refers to § 102(e), apparently by mistake.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013