Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324
that the component “periodically” check the data, the claim is not limited, as
Appellants argue, so as to require the checking to occur at regular intervals. All
that is necessary is that the checking be performed intermittently, a frequency of
occurrence which reads on Christiano (col. 18, l. 62 - col. 19, l. 45) and which
Appellants concede Christiano describes (see Br. 5, ll. 18-19: “the reference
discloses that the server has the ability to check license data in some manner.”)
The rejection is affirmed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the prior art.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013