IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Appl. no.:
`
`12/272,570
`
`Conf. no.
`
`6547
`
`Applicant: Ric B. Richardson
`
`Art Unit:
`
`2493
`
`Filed:
`
`November 17, 2008
`
`Examiner: Ali Shayanfar
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTABLE LICENSING OF DIGITAL
`PRODUCTS
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir,
`
`In response to the Office Action mailed May 5, 2011, please amend the present
`
`application as follows.
`
`Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2.
`
`Remarks begin on page 8.
`
`12/272,570
`
`1
`
`IPR2016-01271
`UNIFIED 1040
`
`

`
`IN THE CLAIMS:
`
`1.
`
`(currently amended) A system for adjusting a license for a digital product over time, the
`
`license comprising at least one allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of devices
`
`authorized for use with the digital product, comprising:
`
`a communication module for receiving a request for authorization to use the digital product
`
`from a given device;
`
`a processor module in operative communication with the communication module;
`
`a memory module in operative communication with the processor module and comprising
`
`executable code for the processor module to:
`
`verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in
`
`part on a device identity associated with generated by sampling physical parameters of the given
`
`device;
`
`in response to the device identity already being on a record, allow the digital product
`
`to be used on the given device;
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record, set the allowed copy count
`
`to a first upper limit for a first time period, the allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum
`
`number of devices authorized to use the digital product;
`
`calculate a device count corresponding to total number of devices already authorized
`
`for use with the digital product; and
`
`when the calculated device count is less than the first upper limit, allow the digital
`
`product to be used on the given device.
`
`2.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the digital product comprises software.
`
`12/272,570
`
`2
`
`

`
`3.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the license data comprises information that may be
`
`used to verify whether the license for the digital product is valid.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the record comprises an authorization database.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the first time period comprises a defined number
`
`of days after an initial authorization of the digital product.
`
`6.
`
`(original) The system of claim 5, wherein the defined number of days comprises six days since
`
`the initial authorization, and wherein the first upper limit comprises five authorized devices.
`
`7.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor module is adapted to, in response to
`
`the calculated device count equaling the first upper limit, send a warning regarding the allowed copy
`
`count to the given device.
`
`8.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor module is adapted to, in response to
`
`the calculated device count exceeding the first upper limit, deny the request for authorization.
`
`9.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the processor module is adapted to:
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record, after the first time period has expired,
`
`set the allowed copy count to a second upper limit for a second time period;
`
`recalculate the device count; and
`
`when the recalculated device count is less than the second upper limit, allow the digital product
`
`to be used on the given device.
`
`10.
`
`(original) The system of claim 9, wherein the second time period comprises a defined number
`
`of days since the initial authorization.
`
`12/272,570
`
`3
`
`

`
`11.
`
`(original) The system of claim 10, wherein the defined number of days comprises thirty-one
`
`days since the initial authorization, and wherein the second upper limit comprises seven authorized
`
`devices.
`
`12.
`
`(original) The system of claim 9, wherein the processor module is adapted to, in response to
`
`the calculated device count equaling the second upper limit, send a warning regarding the allowed copy
`
`count to the given device.
`
`13.
`
`(original) The system of claim 9, wherein the processor module is adapted to, in response to
`
`the calculated device count exceeding the second upper limit, deny the request for authorization.
`
`14.
`
`(original) The system of claim 9, wherein the processor module is adapted to:
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record, after the second time period has
`
`expired, set the allowed copy count to a third upper limit;
`
`recalculate the device count; and
`
`when the recalculated device count is less than the third upper limit, allow the digital product
`
`to be used on the given device.
`
`15.
`
`(original) The system of claim 14, wherein the third upper limit comprises eleven authorized
`
`devices.
`
`16.
`
`(original) The system of claim 14, wherein the processor module is adapted to, in response to
`
`the calculated device count equaling the third upper limit, send a warning regarding the allowed copy
`
`count to the given device.
`
`17.
`
`(original) The system of claim 14, wherein the processor module is adapted to, in response to
`
`the calculated device count exceeding the third upper limit, deny the request for authorization.
`
`12/272,570
`
`4
`
`

`
`18.
`
`(original) The system of claim 1, wherein the device identity comprises unique device
`
`identifying information.
`
`19.
`
`(original) The system of claim 18, wherein the unique device identifying information
`
`comprises at least one user-configurable parameter and at least one non-user-configurable parameter
`
`of the given device.
`
`20.
`
`(original) The system of claim 18, wherein the device identity is generated by utilizing at
`
`least one irreversible transformation of the at least one user-configurable and the at least one non(cid:173)
`
`user-configurable parameters of the given device.
`
`21.
`
`(original) The system of claim 18, wherein the device identity is generated by utilizing a
`
`cryptographic hash function on the at least one user-configurable and the at least one non-user(cid:173)
`
`configurable parameters of the given device.
`
`22.
`
`(currently amended) A method for adjusting a license for a digital product over time, the
`
`license comprising at least one allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of devices
`
`authorized for use with the digital product, comprising:
`
`receiving a request for authorization to use the digital product on a given device;
`
`verifying that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in part
`
`on a device identity associated with generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device;
`
`in response to the device identity already being on a record, allowing the digital product to be
`
`used on the given device;
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record, setting the allowed copy count to a
`
`first upper limit for a first time period, the allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number
`
`of devices authorized to use the digital product;
`
`12/272,570
`
`5
`
`

`
`calculating a device count corresponding to total number of devices already authorized for
`
`use with the digital product; and
`
`when the calculated device count is less than the first upper limit, allowing the digital product
`
`to be used on the given device.
`
`23.
`
`(original) The method of claim 22, further comprising:
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record, after the first time period has
`
`expired, setting the allowed copy count to a second upper limit for a second time period;
`
`recalculating the device count; and
`
`when the recalculated device count is less than the second upper limit, allowing the digital
`
`product to be used on the given device.
`
`24.
`
`(original) The method of claim 23, further comprising:
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record, after the second time period has
`
`expired, setting the allowed copy count to a third upper limit;
`
`recalculating the device count; and
`
`when the recalculated device count is less than the third upper limit, allowing the digital
`
`product to be used on the given device.
`
`25.
`
`(currently amended) A computer program product, comprising:
`
`a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
`
`code for causing a computer to receive a request for authorization to use the digital
`
`product;
`
`code for causing a computer to verify that a license data associated with the digital
`
`product is valid based at least in part on a device identity associated with generated by sampling
`
`12/272,570
`
`6
`
`

`
`physical parameters of the computer;
`
`code for causing a computer to, in response to the device identity already being on a
`
`record, allow the digital product to be used on the computer;
`
`code for causing a computer to, in response to the device identity not being on the
`
`record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period after an initial
`
`authorization of the digital product, the allowed copy count corresponding to a maximum number of
`
`devices authorized to use the digital product;
`
`code for causing a computer to calculate a device count corresponding to total
`
`number of devices already authorized for use with the digital product; and
`
`code for causing a computer to, when the calculated device count is less than the first
`
`upper limit, allowing the digital product to be used on the computer.
`
`12/272,570
`
`7
`
`

`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Shayanfar for his thorough review of the application papers
`
`and his opinion on patentability.
`
`Claims 1-25 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 22 and 25 are amended herein.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration in view of these amendments.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`Applicant thanks the examiner for considering the lengthy IDS references of record.
`
`Response to Rejections Under 35 USC §101
`
`Claim 25 was rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject
`
`matter. Applicant has amended claim 25 according to the examiner's recommendation.
`
`Response to Rejections Under 35 USC §103
`
`Claims 1-4 and 7-9 and 12-24 and 25 were rejected under 35 USC §103(a) as being
`
`obvious over US Patent No. 5,925,127 ("Ahmad")
`
`in view of U.S. Application Pub.
`
`2006/0282511 ("Takano"). Claims 5-6 and 10-11 were rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Ahmad in view of Takano and in further in view of U.S. Application Pub.
`
`2004/0066417 ("Anabuki"). Applicant respectfully traverses.
`
`Background
`
`The present application ("Richardson") discloses an invention for a system that
`
`automatically adjusts usage limitations on licensed software. The adjustable license is based on
`
`exploitation of an advanced technique for generating a "device fingerprint" or "device identifier"
`
`for each of many computers that a single licensee may use to execute the licensed software. The
`
`device identifier uniquely identifies each computer so that the licensing system can keep an
`
`accurate count of the number of computers authorized to use the software under any particular
`
`license. Unlike other software licensing schemes, the Richardson system anticipates that a
`
`licensee's number of computers and computer configurations will change over time, and
`
`therefore implements a method for allowing such changes to occur without the user having to re(cid:173)
`
`license the software, and without allowing unauthorized use of the software to run out of control.
`
`12/272,570
`
`8
`
`

`
`The Ahmad and Takano references also disclose technology in the general field of
`
`monitoring and controlling the usage of software. When examined in greater detail, however, it
`
`becomes apparent that there are several key features that distinguish Richardson over Ahmad in
`
`view of Takano. Chief among these are:
`
`(i) Richardson's device identifier is derived from physical parameters of the licensee's
`
`computer, whereas Ahmad's identifier is not;
`
`(ii) Richardson's copy count represents a number of computers able to execute the
`
`licensed software, whereas Ahmad's "usage count rate" represents the number of executions of a
`
`software by the same computer; and
`
`(iii) Richardson's limitation wherein "in response to the device identity not being on the
`
`record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period' is not taught by
`
`Ahmad in combination with any other reference of record.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`Well-established patent law holds that an obviousness rejection cannot be sustained
`
`unless the cited reference(s) (a) provide a suggestion or motivation to combine reference
`
`teachings in the manner claimed; (b) provide a reasonable expectation of success; and (c) teach
`
`all of the claim limitations, except for those limitations already within the knowledge or common
`
`sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991); KSR
`
`Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Moreover, the burden is on the examiner to
`
`articulate an apparent reason to combine the references in the manner claimed, and to articulate
`
`rationale in support of obviousness rejections. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`Claim 1 - first argument
`
`Regarding the rejection of claim 1, applicant is persuaded, in part, by the argument set
`
`forth in the Office Action on p. 5 regarding Ahmad's teaching to verify that license data ... is
`
`valid based at least in part on a device identity associated with the given device.
`
`In response, applicant has amended the corresponding limitation of claim 1 to recite:
`
`verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at
`least in part on a device identity generated by sampling physical parameters of
`the given device.
`
`12/272,570
`
`9
`
`

`
`This amendment is fully supported m the original specification.
`
`See, e.g. U.S.
`
`Application Pub. 2009/0138975 at par. 0058.
`
`Ahmad's teachings at col. 10, lines 50-67 specify that the device identifier is the second
`
`part of the "CID". The CID is randomly generated by the Software Monitor (SM) module 140,
`
`prior to download to the user's computer. SM 140 is a server associated with Internet site 75a, as
`
`shown in FIG. 3. A random number generated by a server cannot produce a device identity
`
`"generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device" as recited in claim 1.
`
`Moreover, there is no suggestion in Ahmad, either alone or in combination with Takano that
`
`would teach generating a device identity in this manner.
`
`On this basis alone, applicant requests that the § 103 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 1 - second argument
`
`The Office Action on page 5 also asserts that Ahmad teaches "set[ing] the allowed copy
`
`count to a first upper limit for a first time period". Applicant respectfully disagrees with this
`
`assertion.
`
`Ahmad's "usage count rate" is not equivalent to Richardson's claimed "copy count".
`
`Richardson's "copy count" refers to the number of different computers that are authorized to install
`
`the licensed software. Note that throughout the Richardson disclosure, and throughout the claims,
`
`the "copy count" sets a limit on the maximum number of devices that are authorized to use the
`
`software under a single license. See U.S. Appl. Pub. 2009/0138975 at par. 0046. The "device
`
`count" is total the number of devices on which software subject to the single license has actually
`
`been installed. Id. at pars. 0033, 0040, 0047, and FIGS 2, 3A, 3B.
`
`In contrast, the Office Action cites to Ahmad at col. 9, lines 3-11, which teaches that "a usage
`
`count rate may be used where the user rents the program for a fixed number of uses." Ahmad at col.
`
`9 lines 5 to 15 indicates that the "usage count rate" refers to multiple instances of renting the same
`
`version of a software program on the same personal computer 20. Clearly, Ahmad's system is
`
`designed to limit the usage to a single computer. See also Ahmad at col. 12, lines 2-8 ("any
`
`unauthorized copy of the program module 100 launched on a different computer will be rendered
`
`useless").
`
`12/272,570
`
`10
`
`

`
`Therefore Ahmad's teaching at col. 9, lines 3-11 to set a usage count rate to a fixed number of
`
`uses doesn't suggest the claimed step of setting an allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first
`
`time period, where the allowed copy count corresponds to a maximum number of devices authorized
`
`to use the digital product. To clarify this distinction, applicant has amended claim 1 to recite the
`
`foregoing limitation.
`
`On this basis alone, applicant requests that the § 103 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 1 - third argument
`
`It is well established that in an obviousness inquiry, the claimed invention must be interpreted
`
`as a whole. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983); MPEP 2141.02,
`
`Section I.
`
`In view of this requirement, applicant submits that the limitation of claim 1 that
`
`recites:
`
`in response to the device identity not being on the record,
`set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period
`
`should be examined as if it were a single element. The element contains two functionally
`
`interrelated sub-elements. The first sub-element (in response to the device identity not being on
`
`the record) sets up a condition that is required for the execution of the second sub-element (set
`
`the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period). The cause-and-effect
`
`relationship of these two sub-elements cannot be ignored in the obviousness inquiry.
`
`To the contrary, however, the Office Action on page 6 considers only the first sub-element
`
`when formulating the obviousness rejection with respect to the teachings of Takano. That is, the
`
`Office Action cites to Takano at par. 0058 only for teaching "in response to the device identity not
`
`being on the record" and then ignores the second sub-element entirely. In this respect, the Office
`
`Action doesn't put forth a primafacie rejection of claim 1.
`
`In fact, there is no teaching in Takano for the second sub-element. Takano at par. 0058
`
`teaches establishing a limit for the number of licensed terminals that are registered to access a
`
`software content. This limit is established prior to determining whether a terminal identifier is
`
`recognized as being present on the terminal identifier list. Id.
`
`Takano teaches that "when there is no registration of the terminal identifier" and "[w]hen
`
`there is no space [available] in the identifier registering area, the transfer processing of the license is
`
`12/272,570
`
`11
`
`

`
`stopped." This clearly teaches away from the requirement of the second sub-element that in the
`
`absence of a recognized device identifier, the method shall "set the allowed copy count to a first
`
`upper limit for a first time period."
`
`On this basis alone, applicant requests that the § 103 rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 22 and 25
`
`Claims 22 and 25 recite similar limitations as those in claim 1, and have been amended in
`
`a manner similar to the amendments made herein to claim 1.
`
`Applicant asserts that claims 22 and 25 should be allowed over Ahmad in view of Takano
`
`for the same reasons presented above in favor of claim 1.
`
`Claims 2-4, 7-9, 12-21 and 23-24
`
`Each of claims 2-4, 7-9, 12-21 and 23-24 depend from claim 1 or 22. Applicant submits
`
`that each is allowable over Ahmad in view of Takano based on dependency.
`
`Claim 7
`
`The Office Action on page 8 asserts that claim 7 is obvious over Ahmad in view of
`
`Takano because Ahmad teaches a processor module adapted to, in response to the calculated
`
`device count equaling the first upper limit, send a warning regarding the allowed copy count to
`
`the given device. For support, the Office Action cites to Ahmad at col. 14, lines 43-48.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees. Ahmad at col. 14, lines 43-48 teaches sending a
`
`termination message in advance of the user exceeding usage time, but does not teach sending a
`
`termination message when a device count reaches the upper limit of a copy count.
`
`Applicant requests that the § 103 rejection of claim 7 be withdrawn on this basis alone.
`
`Claim 9
`
`The Office Action on page 9 asserts that claim 9 is obvious over Ahmad in view of
`
`Takano and for support cites to Ahmad's teachings at FIG. 4; col. 10 lines 54-62; col. 11 lines
`
`43-54; and col. 12 lines 43-60; and to Takano 's teachings at par. 0058. Applicant respectfully
`
`disagrees with these assertions.
`
`12/272,570
`
`12
`
`

`
`First, regarding the limitation "after the first time period has expired, set the allowed
`
`copy count to a second upper limit for a second time period:', applicant has reviewed the cited
`
`passages of Ahmad and can find no evidence of any time period condition taught by Ahmad, in
`
`which the expiration of the time period causes another action.
`
`Second, regarding the limitations "recalculate the device count; and when the recalculated
`
`device count is less than the second upper limit, allow the digital product to be used on the given
`
`device", applicant can find no evidence in the cited portions of Ahmad that Ahmad ever establishes a
`
`second upper limit on a copy count. Ahmad's teachings are limited to comparing "the total count to the
`
`licensed number of uses each time the user attempts to launch the program module". Ahmad at col. 11,
`
`lines 50-52. In other words, Ahmad's total count is fixed; Ahmad fails to teach recalculating a device
`
`count to provide for an adjustable upper limit.
`
`Third, there are no teachings or suggestions in Ahmad at col. 10, lines 54-62 that provide for a
`
`conditional action of any kind to occur in response to a device count being less than a second upper
`
`limit. As demonstrated above with respect to claim 1, Ahmad teaches usage counts on a single
`
`computer, not copy counts that correspond to the number of devices using the licensed software.
`
`Finally, the rejection of claim 9 at the bottom of page 9 admits that Ahmad in view of Takano
`
`would stop the transfer processing of the software license, in response to the device identity not being
`
`on the record. This fails to render claim 9 obvious because it is not the objective of claim 9 to stop the
`
`processing of the software license. Claim 9 expressly recites a method whereby, in response to the
`
`device identity not being on the record, a second upper limit is established to allow usage of the
`
`software product.
`
`In view of any of the four reasons presented above, applicant requests that the § 103
`
`rejection of claim 9 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 13
`
`The Office Action on page 10 asserts that Ahmad in view of Takano renders claim 13
`
`obvious because Ahmad at col. 9 lines, 3-11 teaches the limitation of claim 13 "wherein the
`
`processor module is adapted to, in response to the calculated device count exceeding the second
`
`upper limit, deny the request for authorization". Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Claim 13 expressly recites "the calculated device count ... " As demonstrated above with
`
`12/272,570
`
`13
`
`

`
`respect to claim 1, Ahmad teaches a usage counts on a single computer, not device counts
`
`representing numbers of computers. On this basis, applicant requests that the rejection of claim 13 be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Claim 19
`
`The Office Action on page 13 rejected claim 19 as obvious over Ahmad in view of Takano
`
`based on the assertion that Ahmad at col. 10, lines 54-59 teaches a unique device identifier
`
`comprising at least one user-configurable parameter and at least one non-user configurable parameter
`
`of the given device. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Ahmad at col. 10 lines 54-59 teaches a "CID" identification number that identifies the "check
`
`in-check out (CICO) module. As demonstrated above with respect to claim 1, Ahmad's teachings at
`
`col. 10, lines 50-67 specify that the device identifier is the second part of the CID. The CID is
`
`randomly generated by the Software Monitor (SM) module 140, prior to download to the user's
`
`computer. SM 140 is a server associated with Internet site 75a, as shown in FIG. 3. A random
`
`number generated by a server cannot produce a device identity wherein the "unique device
`
`identifying information comprises at least one user-configurable parameter and at least one non(cid:173)
`
`user-configurable parameter of the given device" as recited in claim 19 because Ahmad doesn't
`
`teach sampling the given device to obtain such parameters. There is no suggestion in Ahmad,
`
`either alone or in combination with Takano that would teach generating a device identity in this
`
`manner.
`
`On this basis, applicant requests that the § 103 rejection of claim 19 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim 20
`
`The Office Action on page 14 rejects claim 20 as obvious over Ahmad in view of Takano
`
`based on the assertion the Ahmad at col. 12, lines 13-31 teaches generating a device identity
`
`utilizing at least one irreversible transformation of the at least one user-configurable and the at least
`
`one non-user-configurable parameters of the given device, as recited in claim 20.
`
`Applicant has reviewed the cited passage of Ahmad and can find no evidence whatsoever to
`
`support the assertion that Ahmad teaches an irreversible transformation of device parameters.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection of claim 20 be withdrawn.
`
`12/272,570
`
`14
`
`

`
`Claims 21-22
`
`The Office Action on page 14 rejects claim 21 as obvious over Ahmad in view of Takano
`
`based on the assertion the Ahmad at col. 14, lines 49-64 teaches a "device identity is generated by
`
`utilizing a cryptographic hash function on the at least one user-configurable and the at least one
`
`non-user-configurable parameters of the given device" as recited in claim 21. Applicant respectfully
`
`disagrees.
`
`Ahmad at col. 14, lines 49-64 teaches the use of an encrypted database for storing an APPID,
`
`which is an identifier of the software product provided by the publisher. See Ahmad, col. 10, lines
`
`11-18. Importantly, the APPID is not a device identifier that uniquely identifies a computing device.
`
`Therefore storing the APPID in an encrypted database is not a teaching for generating a device
`
`identity by utilizing a cryptographic has function on device parameters, as claimed.
`
`Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and was similarly rejected. Based on the above, applicant
`
`requests withdrawal of the § 103 rejections of claims 21 and 22.
`
`Claim23
`
`In response to the rejection of claim 23, applicant reasserts here the arguments presented
`
`above in favor of claim 9, and requests withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of claim 23.
`
`Claims 5-6 and 10-11
`
`Claims 5-6 and 10-11 depend from claim 1. Applicant reasserts here all of the foregoing
`
`arguments in favor of claim 1 and requests that the rejections of claims 5-6 and 10-11 be
`
`withdrawn on this basis.
`
`Specifically regarding the rejection of claim 5, applicant submits that Anabuki is not
`
`analogous art, in that its teachings are directed to protecting contents in system operating in a
`
`"mixed reality" (MR) environment, i.e. an environment containing both virtual reality and real
`
`space components. Anabuki 's objective is to inhibit contents from being executed in the absence
`
`of authorized real objects. Anabuki at par. 0010. Applicant submits that a skilled artisan seeking
`
`to solve the same problem as Richardson regarding adjustable licensing of software would not
`
`seek out teachings related to MR systems. Under KSR, the burden is on the examiner to
`
`articulate an apparent reason to combine references in an obviousness rejection. Applicant
`
`12/272,570
`
`15
`
`

`
`submits that that burden has not been met.
`
`Moreover, Anabuki at par. 0034 teaches granting execution rights as long as a trial period
`
`has not expired. There is no teaching in par. 0034 that sets a first time period, in days, in
`
`response to a device identity not being recognized, as recited in claim 5/1. Anabuki at 0031 and
`
`0034 teaches checking "if a trial period has expired" in order to grant permission to execute MR
`
`system contents, not to set a time period for adjustable licensing of software. The combined
`
`teachings of Ahmad, Takano and Anabuki would therefore fail to achieve the limitations of claim
`
`5. The same logic applies in refutation of the rejections of claims 6 and 10-11.
`
`Applicant requests that the § 103 rejections of claim 5-6 and 10-11 be withdrawn.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of all of the above, applicant believes that all pending claims are in condition for
`
`allowance and earnestly requests that these claims be passed to issuance.
`
`If the Examiner
`
`believes that a telephone conversation would help to expedite prosecution, please call the
`
`undersigned attorney at the number below.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`Reg. No. 51,513
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc.
`2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
`Irvine, CA 92612
`(949) 825-5527
`
`12/272,570
`
`16