Appeal 2007-1319
Application 09/797,017
Claim 28 is illustrative:
28. A computer-readable medium having stored thereon a digital license
for specifying rights with regard to corresponding digital content, the digital
license specifying at least one event and specifying for the at least one event
at least one of a condition precedent to allowing the event to proceed and an
action to be taken once the event has occurred, wherein the specified event is
a storage of the license on a computer storage device.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Krishnan US 6,073,124 Jun. 6, 2000
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 28, 35, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 24-33, 35-44, and 68-82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Krishnan.
OPINION
Claims 28, 35, and 41 -- § 101
Appellant submits, in response to the § 101 rejection, that the
Examiner’s reliance on Ex parte Bowman and a “technological arts” test is
misplaced.1 We agree. Appellant has not, however, responded to the
rejection insofar as it is based on the invention being directed to an abstract
idea, or nonfunctional descriptive material. As the Supreme Court has made
clear, “[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.” In re Warmerdam, F.3d 1354,
1 See Ex parte Bowman, 61 USPQ2d 1669 (BPAI 2001) (non-precedential);
Ex parte Lundgren, 76 USPQ2d 1385 (BPAI 2005) (precedential).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013