Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2018

13076460 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/076,460 03/31/2011 Ziquan Li 332075-US-NP 3793
69316 7590 01/18/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
W OLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZIQUAN LI, SANJEEV DWIVEDI,
SUNIL S. KADAM, ALWIN VYHMEISTER, and
ARIYE M. COHEN
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. The claims relate to
“revoking licensed software in a computing environment.” Spec. Abstract;
see Spec. ^ 3. According to the Specification, the licensed software is
disabled “on a computer system that has been stolen or otherwise lost. Thus,
the licensee of the software may be able to obtain a replacement license to
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
use the software without having to purchase an additional license.” Id. 16.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method for revoking a license to software, comprising:
receiving a machine ID from a computer system;
sending a plurality of application programs and a
corresponding plurality of license credentials for the application
programs, to the computer system;
receiving one request to revoke the corresponding
plurality of license credentials, the request identifying the
machine ID;
detecting a connection by the computer system based on
the machine ID;
sending, based on the request, an indication that the
corresponding plurality of license credentials for the application
programs are revoked in response to the connection; and
sending the plurality of application programs and a
corresponding plurality of replacement license credentials for the
application programs, to another computer system.
App. Br. 11.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aono (US 2011/0061102 Al; Mar. 10,
2011) and Hu (US 2007/0150417 Al; June 28, 2007). Final Act. 3-13.1 2
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Aono, Hu, and Lin (US 2009/0259838 Al;
Oct. 15,2009). Final Act. 13-15.
1 Claim 5 and 12 are mistakenly omitted from the header for this rejection,
but otherwise appear in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 3, 6, 9. We
find the Examiner’s typographical error to be harmless.
2
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER AONO AND HU
The Examiner finds that Aono discloses many recited elements of
independent claim 1 including, among other things, sending application
programs and their corresponding license credentials to a computer system,
and sending the application programs and their corresponding replacement
license credentials to another computer system. Final Act. 3—4; Ans. 2-3,
14-15. Although the Examiner finds that Aono does not disclose sending an
indication that the application programs’ corresponding license credentials
are revoked in response to detecting the computer system’s connection, the
Examiner nonetheless cites Hu for teaching this feature in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious over Aono’s and Hu’s collective
teachings. Final Act. 4-5.
Appellants argue that Aono and Hu collectively do not teach or
suggest sending application programs and their corresponding license
credentials to a computer system and sending the application programs and
their corresponding replacement license credentials to another computer
system. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 1-3.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Aono and Hu collectively would have taught or suggested (1) sending
application programs and their corresponding license credentials to a
3
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
computer system, and (2) sending the application programs and their
corresponding replacement license credentials to another computer system?
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the disputed limitation. Claim construction is
an issue of law that is reviewable tie novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific
Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, claim 1
recites, in pertinent part:
[a] sending a plurality of application programs and a
corresponding plurality of license credentials for the
application programs, to the computer system; [and] . . .
[b] sending the plurality of application programs and a
corresponding plurality of replacement license credentials
for the application programs, to another computer system.
App. Br. 11 (letter designations added for ease of reference). Although
claim l’s ordering of the method steps places step [b] after step [a], method-
steps are not ordinarily construed to require a specific order of performance
of the method-steps unless the Specification or claims expressly or implicitly
require the performance in that specific order. SeeAltiris v. Symantec Corp.,
318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Interactive Gift Express Inc. v.
CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Further, although a term
of step [b] (i.e., the application programs) possesses antecedent basis in step
[a], the fact that this term is present in steps [a] and [b] alone does not
expressly or implicitly require that step [a] occurs before step [b]. Nor does
step [b]’s “replacement” license credentials expressly or implicitly require
4
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
that step [a] occurs before step [b]. The plain meaning of “replacement” is
“one that replaces another” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
992 (10th ed. 1993)); “replace,” in turn, means “to take the place of’ {id.).
A second set of license credentials to take the place of a first set of license
credentials does not expressly or implicitly require sending the second set of
license credentials after sending the first set of license credentials.
Nor does Appellants’ Specification disclose a specific order of
sending license credentials and replacement license credentials. According
to the Specification, obtaining a replacement license provides a way for a
licensee of software to disable a computer system’s licensed software. Spec.
16. In one embodiment, a rightful user is granted a replacement license to
use an application program on another computer system. Id. 32. Thus, we
conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, consistent with
the Specification, recites no temporal order between steps [a] and [b].
In the Final Rejection and Answer, the Examiner cites sections of
Aono directed to a general multifunction peripheral (MFP) 100. Final Act.
3^1 (citing Aono 47, 58-60, 64; Fig. 2); Ans. 2-3. In response to
Appellants’ argument that Aono sends different software versions to the
same MFP 100 {see App. Br. 7), the Examiner quotes language from
paragraph 157 of Aono:
MFP 100a has issued a re-activation request in the situation that,
after an application has been activated with a product key and
then forcefully deactivated on the MFP 100a, the another one of
the MFPs 100, or specifically the MFP 1006, has issued an
activation request with the same product key.
5
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
Ans. 14 (additionally citing Aono ^ 4; Fig. 1). We, therefore, presume that
the Examiner intends to map Aono’s MFP 100a to the recited computer
system and MFP 100b to the recited another computer system.
Aono is generally directed to a license management server connected
to a personal computer (PC) and multiple MFPs such as copiers, facsimiles,
or printers. See Aono, Abstract, Fig. 1, 43, 45, 49. Aono’s PC, connected
to the multiple MFPs, sends a license purchase request for a distribution
package. Id. 46, 49, 58. Aono’s distribution package, also referred to as
a “software component,” is allocated a product ID and an indication whether
the distribution package “requires activation (licensing).” Id. 45, 52, 54.
In response to receiving the PC’s license purchase request, Aono’s
license management server creates and transmits a product key to a license
management database. Id. 58-59, 111. Aono’s license management
server also transmits the product key to an MFP. Id. Aono’s MFP, in turn,
requests a license file by providing the received product ID and the MFP’s
device ID to the license management server. Id. 59, 113. Aono’s license
management server, in return, sends a distribution package and a newly
created license file to the MFP. Id. 60, 116.
Aono’s MFP installs the distribution package and sends an activation
request including the product key and the MFP’s device ID. Id. ^ 75, 118,
122. If one or more available licenses from the license management
database are associated with the product key, then the MFP’s distribution
package is activated. Id. 75, 119, 122-23. Figure 16 of Aono is
reproduced on the following page.
6
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
100a
J
w?
FIG. 18
LICE MSE MANAGEMENT SERVER
300
-d—
;oob
MFP
PERFORM ENFORCED ACTIVATION
'£50 :
PERFORM ENFORCED DEACTIVATION
J'MMIlFPIWSil j ECTT RECORD
PERFORM
-ACTIVATION
S5A
NORMAL COMPLETION. rss3
LJ. S52
«—i- 1
ACTIVATION L
./-COMPLETED r
j S5£ t
PERFORM ACTIVATION I
'(ON MFP 100b) S55 J
NORMAL COMPLETION P-
S57 M
EDIT RECORD
'SS8
PERFORM ACTIVATIONrsss i PERFORM ACTIVATION
f(ON MFP S60 I
ERROR MESSAGE
S52
EDIT RECORD
"S61
ACITVATION-ERROR MESSAGE
j 353 l i
Reproduction of Aono’s Figure 16.
Aono’s Figure 16 is a diagram illustrating a specific sequence of operations
involving the deactivation of an activated MFP 100a and the activation of
MFP 100b. Id. 33, 145. Because MFP 100a performs an activation at
steps S50 and S59, and MFP 100b performs an activation at step S54, in that
sense, then, Aono at least suggests MFPs 100a and 100b each previously
received a distribution package and product ID before the activations for
reasons discussed above. Thus, Aono teaches or suggests sending a
distribution package (the claimed “plurality of application programs”) and a
corresponding product key (the claimed “plurality of license credentials for
the application programs”) to MFP 100a (the claimed “computer system”),
and sending the distribution package and a corresponding product key (the
7
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
claimed “plurality of replacement license credentials for the application
programs”) to MFP 100b (the claimed “another computer system”).
Appellants’ contention that Aono’s activation (or re-activation) does
not download (or send) a distribution package (or application), product,
license, or product key to MFP 100b because the distribution package
download is performed during a purchase or download request occurring
before the activation, Reply Br. 2 (citing Aono 46, 58-63, 82-88, 117—
20), is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. That is, the claim does not preclude an MFP downloading a
distribution package before the MFP’s activation. Nor does the claim
preclude MFP 100b from downloading the distribution package before MFP
100a downloads the distribution package. Nor does the claim limit sending
a distribution package to an MFP with respect to the timing of sending the
product ID to the MFP.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 8 and 15, which recite similar limitations. Further, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7, 11-14, 16, and 18-20, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3,
9, 10, 17, and 21. Final Act. 13-15. Because these rejections were not
argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in those
rejections for the reasons previously discussed.
8
Appeal 2017-008638
Application 13/076,460
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21 under § 103.
DECISION2
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2015).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
2 We leave to the Examiner to consider whether the “one or more computer-
readable storage memory devices” recited in claims 15-21 are ineligible
under § 101 as encompassing non-statutory subject matter. See Ex parte
Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding
recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 101 because it
encompassed transitory media).
9