Ex Parte Satkunanathan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2007

10723324 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte LINGAN SATKUNANATHAN,
YUSUFALI SAMEER MERCHANT, and
GARY P. RADEN
__________

Appeal No. 2007-0519
Application No. 10/723,3241
Technology Center 3600
__________

Decided: May 18, 2007
__________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
LINDA E. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 Filed 26 November 2003.
Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

2

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.
Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

3
A. ISSUE

The Examiner makes an element-by-element analysis of the claim and
shows where each element is described in Christiano. Answer 3-6.
Appellants argue solely that “Christiano does not teach or suggest a
validation component that periodically checks stored license data to ensure that the
data has not been corrupted as recited in independent claim 1 … .” Brief 4
(emphasis omitted).
The issue is whether Christiano describes the claimed validation component.

B. FINDING OF FACTS (FF)

The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. The claimed subject matter is directed to a software license enforcement
system that monitors the number of users logged on to a licensed application and
takes corrective action if the number of users logged on to the licensed application
exceeds the number authorized under the license. The claimed system includes a
validation component.
2. Claim 1 defines the validation component as follows:
a validation component that periodically checks stored license data to ensure
that the data has not been corrupted.

Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

4
3. Christiano (col. 6, ll. 34-37) describes a system for managing software
licenses comprising a license server that stores licenses. When a user wants to use
a particular program, a request for a license to operate the program is sent to the
license server. If the user is permitted to operate the program according to a license
policy, the server assigns a license for that program to the client computer system
and the user can then operate the program. The Christiano system takes corrective
action when the license is violated, including denying a license when the maximum
number of licenses for the program have been assigned (col. 7, ll. 9-11).
4. Christiano’s license server includes a database of license records. These
records may include software package and license descriptions (col. 9, ll. 44-50).
They may also include a key.
The “KEY” provides an authentication, such as an X-digit number or string
of characters, which allows the server process to verify that the package
description has not been tampered with.

Col. 11, lines 45-48.
5. According to Christiano (referring to Figure 9)

[i]f a license record is available in the database, then in optional step
163, the key stored in the found license record is verified to determine if the
license record has not been tampered with and is legitimate … . If the record
is not legitimate, then step 180 is implemented [i.e., step 180 = “Is there
another record in license database for requested product?”].

Col. 19, lines 17-25.

6. We cannot find, and Appellants have not shown where, in the Specification
the claim term “corrupted” is defined.
Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

5
7. The Specification discloses the following:
Validation component 140 can provide periodic (e.g., daily, after
restoring licenses from backup …) validity checks on the license store 110
to ensure that data has not been tampered with by malicious individuals or
otherwise corrupted. The validations can be accomplished by retrieving a
license key … .

Page 9, lines 1-4.

8. “Periodically” means “from time to time.” Webster’s New World
Dictionary 1004, definition 2 (Third College Edition, 1988).

C. PRINCIPLES OF LAW

1. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
2. Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3. Claims are given the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).

Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

6
D. ANALYSIS

The issue is whether Christiano describes the claimed validation component.
We find that it does.
Christiano describes a system comprising a verification component for
checking whether a stored license has been tampered with and to take action if that
is the case. FF 4 and 5. Christiano’s system ensures the proper license is stored by
first checking a key. Christiano checks a key associated with the license to
determine whether the stored license has been tampered with. While it is true, as
Appellants argue (Br. 6), that Christiano checks the key rather than the license data
itself; nevertheless, Christiano is checking the license data to determine if it has
been tampered with, albeit indirectly. The claimed validation component likewise
checks stored data. However, the claim does not say how that checking is
performed. Therefore, checking stored data using a key is not precluded by the
claim and the claim therefore encompasses the indirect technique Christiano
describes.
Appellants also argue that Christiano, unlike the claimed validation
component, does not check to see if the stored data is “corrupted.” Br. 6, ll. 11-19.
While it is true that Christiano does not use the term “corrupted” to describe the
condition of the stored license being checked, that is nevertheless what Christiano
is doing when it checks to see if the record has been “tampered with.” The
Specification does not give the term “corrupted,” as it is used in the claim, a
meaning that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning. FF 6. To one of
ordinary skill in the art, a “corrupted” record is a record that has been altered, and
Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

7
that would include records having been “tampered with.” When a stored license is
tampered with, it is corrupted. That is consistent with the way the term is used in
the Specification. FF 7. Accordingly, in claiming that the validation component
checks to see if the stored data is “corrupted,” it reads on Christiano’s checking to
see if the record has been “tampered with.”
Finally, Appellants submit that its validation component distinguishes from
that of Christiano because Christiano does not describe “periodically” checking
stored data to ensure that the data has not been corrupted. Appellants (Br. 5, ll. 16-
18) argue that one of ordinary skill reading the claim would construe
“periodically” as recited in the claim to mean at regular intervals. But the plain
meaning of the term “periodically” is from time to time. FF 8. Furthermore, the
specification does not define the term any more narrowly than the plain meaning
would give it. Appellants cite page 9, ll. 1-3, to argue that “the instant
specification teaches checking of license data with a fixed frequency (e.g., daily),
which is a periodic event.” Br. 5, ll. 21-23. However, what it actually says is:
“Validation component 140 can provide periodic (e.g., daily, after restoring
licenses from back-up …) validity checks on the license store 110 … .” The
Specification actually gives the term “periodic” a much broader definition; one
covering both checking at regular intervals (e.g., daily) and, as can be the case
when one restores licenses from back-up, from time to time. When given the
broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification as interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art, the claim encompasses a system comprising a validation
component which checks license data from time to time. Accordingly, in requiring
Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

8
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.
Appeal 2007-0519
Application 10/723,324

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-18, 20-33, and 35-43 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED

vsh

AMIN. TUROCY & CALVIN, LLP
24TH FLOOR, NATIONAL CITY CENTER
1900 EAST NINTH STREET
CLEVELAND OH 44114