Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09870801"

See other formats


fi[ip.//v/ww.uspto.gov/webyoffices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850. 


Form PTO-850-(Rev. 
01-10-2001) 


INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUiw 


Count # 


To the Board of Patent Appeals and rnterferences: 

An interference is proposed involving the following parties 


PARTY 


APPLICATION NO. /\ 


FILING DATE 


If the involved case is a patent, have Hs maintenance fees l>een paid? Yes 


PATENT NO.. IF ANY 


ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 


No 


, Not due yet _ 


Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity}: 



The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: 


PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CUUMS 


The claim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to thiscount: C?^ . rs-x .^^ ..^ . 'ZZ, ^===zrrrr:zr: 

\03 ^ \cy±^\\0,\\\ ^g cf 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS " ' 


PARTY C^ISirvsOia 


APPLICATION NO. 


<^lS^^ SI I 


FILING DATE 


If the involved case is a patent, have Hs maintenance fees been paid? Yes ^ No Not due yet 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


PATENT NO. IF ANY 


ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 

i2/( /^g 


P«»posed priority benefrt Qist all intervening appncafions necessaiy for continuity) 


^/s/o2 3'/^yr-Pe€pQ.:rj 



1 of 2 


11/5/02 10:58 /VM 


.u-ip.y/vvww.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.ht 


PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CUVIMS 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


The daim(s) ofthis party NOT corresponding to this count: ^ 
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CUmS 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


(Check off each step, if applicable) INSTRUCTIONS 


• 1 . Obtain all files listed above. 

• 2. Confirm that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments 
for. among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970). 

• 3. If one of the invoNed files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance wHh 35 U.S.C. 135(b) 

• 4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 .55(a)). 
5. Discuss the proposed interference with an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center. 


have been considered. The patents must not be expired 


DATE 

PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature) 

ART UNIT 

TELEPHONE NO. | 

DATE 

INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature) 

TELEPHONE NO. 




Page_V_ofJ^ 


6f2 


11/5/02 10:58 AM 


nnp://www.uspio-gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.ht. 


Forni PTO-850-(Rev. 
01-10-2001) 

INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM 

] " ' ' ' ' Count* 1 

~ — w., ^ 

To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: . ■ Tv F ' . C 

An Interference is proposed involving the followinq ^ parties— 

PARTY dfee^sCM K) 

APPLICATION NO. 

"\ FILING DATE 

1 io/(/qS 

PATENT NO., IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

rf the involved case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet 

Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 

\ APPLtCATTON NO. 

FILING DATE 

1 PATENT NO.. IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

USA 










■ 










The claim(s) of this party conesponding to this count: C2/^ a -9 Ci^ . ^ ^ ^ . "i 

PATENTED OR PATEITTABLE PENDING CLAIMS r i 

» ■ <Ol\\ I 

— • — — ^ ^ . 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS . 

The claim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: -53 ^2 -^3 ^<=^ <^2 S5' 5"? 6>7 ^' 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PE 

ENDING CLAIMS 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

PARTY csev^so^ 

APPLICATION NO. 

FILING DATE 

PATENT NO., IF ANY | 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

If the involved case is a patent, have Hs maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet 



Proposed pnority benefit (list all inleivening applications necessaty for continuHy)- 

COUNTRY \ 

: . 

APPLICATION NO. 

RUNG DATE 

PATENT NO., IF ANY | 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

U5A 1 

I — ™ i 




— — 

U5A j 









i 






The cla.m(s)ofth»partirc«Tespondin8 to this count: [-^ S-(2. (S-{7 \q 22 '27- 2,^ 



1 of 2 


11/5/02 10:58 AM 


nnp://www.uspto.gov/wed/ofrices/dcom/bpa(/PTO-850.f 


PATENTED OR PAtENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

^(| 1 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

The daim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count- A~ , ^ ^ ~ '-^ 

,^ — : .i;?^„i±j ?5,._.:zo^ 2. 1 ^ 2g r 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS | 

e^n - i 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


(Check off each step, if applicable) INSTRUCTIONS 


• 1. Obtain all files listed above. ~ ~" — „ 

• 2. Conn™ that the proposed involved ctaims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been con.id«^ "n. . . 
for,amongo.her.hings,fail.re,opayan,ain.enancefee(CheckPALMscreen2970). The patents must no, be expired 

• 3. If one of the involved files is a published application ora patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b) 
4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 .S5(a)) 

' S P'^«"'P^°P°^d interference with an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center 


DATE 


PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature) 


DATE 


^ 3 


ART UNIT 


INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature) 


TELEPHONE NO. 

305-38-37 


TELEPHONE NO. 

'i O 4 ^ / 6 O 


Page_2_of_^ 


2 Of 2 


niip.//v/wvv,uspio.gov/web/OTfices/dconri/bpa(/PTO-650.hti 


Form PTO-850-<Rev. 
01-10-2001) 

INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM 

i - ; * ' 1 ' Count # 

To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences! " f • : f ; - 

An interference is proposed involving the followinq 2. parties 

PARTY 

APPLICATION NO. 

1 -'RUNG DATE 

PATENT NO.. IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 

If the involved case is a patent, have Hs maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet 

Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 

APPLICATION NO. 

1 FlUNGDATE 

PATENT NO,. F ANY 

ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 

USA 





USA 





USA 










Theciaim(s)of this party con^esponding to this count: l03lO^(2-3t'3>2-(33 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 1 | 1 

— ~ \ 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

Thedaim(s)ofth.spartyNOTcorrespondingtothiscount: q(,q2) { 02_ LOS^l^^. l'2^-f3( \'^i/^{A^ 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

PARTY ([een&c^^ J^) j 

APPLICATION NO. 

FILING DATE i 

PATENT NO., IF ANY 

ISSUEDATE.IFANY 

If the mwlved case IS a patent, have Hs maintenance fees been paid? Yes X No Notdueyel '^/^/o'Z 372. yr -fcC p=udl 

Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY i 

APPUCATKDN NO. 

RUNG DATE 

PATENT NO.. IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY * 





















The clatm(8) of this party corresponding to this count: > ^ ( ^ J ^ 


1 of 2 


11/5/0210:58 AM 


nnp:y/wv/w.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-85ahtt 


PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


The claim(s} of this party NOT corresponding to this count: [~ S 5-^2. 1^-2.^ 
PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


(Check off each step, if appiicabie) INSTRUCTIONS 


• 1 . Obtain all files listed above. 

• 2. Confirm that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have 
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970). 

• 3. fi one of the invoked files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance v«th 35 U.S.C. 135(b). 

• A. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 .55(a)). 

• 5. Discuss the proposed interference with an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center. 


been considered. The patents must not be expired 


DATE 

PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature) 

ART UNIT 

TELEPHONE NO. 

DATE 1 

INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature) \ 

TELEPHONE NO. 


Page_3_of_(^ 


2 Of 2 


ii/5/62 10:58 AM 


nnp://vw/w. uspto.gov/weD/onices/dcom/Dpai/ i O-o50.him 


Fonn PTO-850-(Rev. 
01-10-2001) 

INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM 


To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences! ; . ; ' : : • , ; . c N C E 3 

An interference is proposed involvinq the foilowinq 2. parties — 

PARTY CBeviCOvi ^) 

i APPLICATION NO. 

j FILING DATE 

\ PATENT NO., IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF A^fy 

tf the invotved case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due vet 

Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 

APPLICATION NO. 

FILING DATE 

PATENT NO.. IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

USA 




















The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: 33 '4'2 -43 '4'7 S-?- d ~^ 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 1^ ^\ 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

The ciaim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: 3O- 32 , 3^- 4H ^ 4^^H:>^ 4^ , ^ < ^ ^ - CoCc? (c>S' .(<F\ 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

PARTY (-B^enson Id) 

APPUCATION NO. 

FlUNG DATE 

PATENT NO.. IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

tf the involved case is a patent, have its maintenance fees t>een paid? Yes No Not due vet 

Proposed priority benePrt QlsX all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 1 

APPLICATION NO. | 

t 

FlUNG DATE j 

PATENT NO.. IF AfsIY 

ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 

USA 

O^/iCc^ Got, 




CtsA ^ 















The clatm(s)ofthts party conesponding to this count: zj- |^ 2-0 Zi 2S 3^ ' 


http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpat/PTO-850.ht= 


PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 



PATENTED OR P ATENTABLE P ENDING CLAIMS 


(Check on each step Jfappiicable) INSTRUCTIONS 


UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 


• I.Oblain all files listed above. 

• 2. Confim, that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have l»en cor^idered The patents must . ■ ^ 
for. among other things. fail>.re to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970). considered. The patents must not be expired 

• 3. If one of the involved files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b). 

• A. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1.5S(a)). 


DATE 

PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature) j 

ART UNIT 

TELEPHONE NO. 

DATE 

INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature) \ 

TELEPHONE NO. 


Page 4" of 6? H 



2 Of 2 


11)^ 10:58 AM 


• toffxx KJU-<)00-^r\ev 


nnpj/www.uspio.gov/weD/onices/dconvbpaiyPTO-tiDO.ntrTi 


Form PTO-85(MRev. 
01-10-2001) 

INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM 

1 . '-j 5^ntfL!i2|^£ 

To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences I : ]} ; " ■ ' ' f? " : r- 

An interference is proposed involving the following 2. parties — 

PARTY 

1 APPLICATION NO. 

1 FILING DATE 

1 PATENT NO.. IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

If the involved case rs a Datent. have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due vet 

Proposed priority benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 

APPLICATION NO. 

RUNG DATE 

PATENT NO., IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 

USA 










USA 







■ 



The claim (s) of this party corresponding to this count: 1(0 (11 I 3^ ("^O 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS H 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

The claim<s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: (Q^ IV'Z-^lSS ( <^ ( ( 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

oil 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS % 

PARTY Q^OnSO^ X) 

APPUCATION NO. \ 

FILING DATE j 

PATENT NO., IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

If the involved case is a patent, have its mairilenance fees lieen paid? Yes No Not due yet 2>(2. "F^^. pcUct 

Proposed priofity benefit (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 

APPLICATION NO, 

RUNG DATE 

PATENT NO., IF ANY 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 



















i 


The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this coUnfc 20 2 \ 


1 of2 


11/5/02 10:58 AM 


-roiir) r to-oao-(Kev 


n[ip://wwv/.uspio.gov/weDyorTices/acom/bpat;P 1 0-6ou.nim 


PAtENTED OR PATEtTTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

The claifn(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: j '2- 2 2-^ 

PATErfTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

(Check offeach step, if appiicabte) INSTRUCTIONS 


• 1 . Obtain all files listed atxwe. 

• 2. Confim™ that the proposed involved claims are still active and all correclions and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired 
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970). 

• 3. If one of the invoh^d files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b). 

• 4, Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 .55(a)). 

• S. Discuss the proposed interference vwth an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center. 


DATE 


PRIMARY EXAMINER (signature) 


ART UNfr 


TELEPHONE NO. 


DATE 


INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature) 


TELEPHONE NO. 


Page ^ of (p 


2of2 


11/5/02 10:58 AM 


http://wvvw.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/PTO-850.htn 


Form PTO^50-(Rev. 
01-10-2001) 

INTERFERENCE INITIAL MEMORANDUM 

\' 2 i Mil 1 bbuni 3 

To the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences! . ■ " : : ^ r r h C ' ' r rc: ' ~ ' 

An interference is proposed involving the followinq ^ parties 

PARTY (3^5^^ jr) 

i APPLICATION NO. 

1 FILING D/VTE 

1 PATENT NO.. IF /^Y 

j ISSUE DATE, IF ANY 

If the involved case is a patent, have its maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet 

Proposed priority beneHt (list all intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 

APPLICATION NO. 

FILING DATE 

PATENT NO., IF ANY 

i ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

USA 




















The claim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: ^3 

PATENTED OR PATEffTAQLE PENDING CI AIMS ^ ^ | 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

The claim(s) of this party NOT corresponding to this count: _ ^ | SH" - QJ^ 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

PARTY (^6ev^So^^ HE) 

APPLICATION NO. 

FILING DATE 

PATENT NO.. IF fiW 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

If the involved case IS a patent, have Hs maintenance fees been paid? Yes No Not due yet 

Proposed priority benefit Oist alt intervening applications necessary for continuity): 

COUNTRY 1 

APPLICATION NO. \ 

FIUNG DATE 

PATENT NO.. IF MTf 

ISSUE DATE. IF ANY 

USA 1 


to/i/qg 1 



USA \ 

... ^ _ 





i 
i 




i 

: 

i 
1 




: 

The daim(s) of this party corresponding to this count: '2.^ 


-Horm r-Up-oou-(nev 


nnp ://www.uspio.gov/weD/onices/acom/Dpai;r i u-oou.mm 


PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 1 

au{{ 1 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAI?VIS 

The claim(s) of this party NOT corresponding lo this count: |— 2-2 2-5"^S^3 

PATENTED OR PATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 1 

cxJi . \ 

1 

UNPATENTABLE PENDING CLAIMS 

(Check off each step, if applicable) INS TRU C Tl ONS 


• 1 . Obtain all files listed above. 

• 2. Confirm that the proposed involved claims are still active and all corrections and entered amendments have been considered. The patents must not be expired 
for, among other things, failure to pay a maintenance fee (Check PALM screen 2970). 

• 3. If one of the involved files is a published application or a patent, check for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 135(b). 

• 4. Obtain a certified copy of any foreign benefit documents where necessary (37 CFR 1 .55(a)). 

• 5. Discuss the proposed interference vwth an Interference Practice Specialist in your Technology Center. 


DATE 


PRIfyiARY EXAMINER (signature) 


ART UNIT 


TELEPHONE NO. 


DATE 


"6 1 1:^/0 


INTERFERENCE PRACTICE SPECIALIST or TECHNOLOGY CENTER DIRECTOR (signature) 


TELEPHONE NO. 

Page ^ of 


2 Of 2 


11/5/02 10:58 AM 


Serial No. 09/411,205 
Art Unit 2125 


-pagel - 


Interference ihcxxxxx 

1. Count 1: Claim 1 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. III). 

2. Count 2: Claim 4 of SN 09/32 1,386 (Benson etaLm). 

3. Count 3: Claim 23 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. m). 

Differences between the counts: 

Count 2 depends from Count 1 , but the specific security control elements, and processing in response thereto 
of Count 2 would not have been obvious over the presence of generic control elements in the method of Count 1 ' 
Count 3 is separate from Count 1 , because the comparing of multiple data packages for matching elements 
m order to control processor execution of Count 3 would not have been.obvious over using control elements to control 
access to data objects as in the method of Count 1 . 

Means plus function analysis: 

No means plus function language has been used. 

Correlation of claims in SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. ID), SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. 11) PN 5845281 
(Benson et al. 1) and SN 09/41 1 ,205 (Ginter et al.. Senior party) to the counts: 

COUNT 1: 

- claim 1 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. DI), with the following corresponding claims- 
SN 09/321,386 (Benson etal.m): claims 1-3,5-12, 15-17, 19, 22, 27, 29-37 and 39-53 
SN 09/164.606 (Benson et al. H): claims 30-32, 34-41, 44-46, 48, 51, 56, 58-66, 68 and 69 
PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I): claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-19 and 22-29 

SN09/41I,205(Ginteretal.):cla:ms91-93,95-102, 105-109, 1 12-122, 124-131, 134-138and 141-148 

Correspondence of claims of SN 09/321^86 (Benson et al. HI) to Count 1 above. 

Independent claim 1 is Count 1 . 

Independent claam 10 provides for the "mirror" of the method of Count 1 (i.e.; Count 1 provides for 
packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for ti^nsmission to a user, while this claim provides for 
the user receiving such objects and using them accordmg to the usage control elements), which would have been an 
obvious consequence of the method of Count 1. 


Serial No, 09/4 J J ,205 
Art Unit 2125 


- page 2- 


Independent claim 16 is the apparatus version of Count 1. 

Independent claim 1 9 is the apparatus version of claim 1 0, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above. 
Independent claims 27 and 35 provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data 
objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose 
of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared data environment, for example. 

Independent claims 36, 41, 43 and 48, and claims 37, 42, 44 and 50, are similar to the method of Count 1 
except that various steps have been omitted, such being obvious since omission of an element and its fimction in a 
combination where remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. 

Claim 2 adds the limitation that the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification would 
have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because 
encrypting control data was well-known to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least 
by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 47961 81, see at least col. 13). 

Claims 3, 5, 17, 39 and 52 add limitations concerning various types of control data included in the method 
of Count 1, which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant 
invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments. 

Claims 6, 8, 33, 40 and 49 additionally provide for the "mirror" of the method of Count 1 (i.e.; Count 1 
provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control, elements for transmission to a user, while these 
listed claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control elements), 
which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1. 

Claim 7 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an 
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Internet 
environment, for example. 

Claims 9, 15, 22, 32 and 34 additionally provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects (i.e.; the 
sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1 , wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well- 
known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared data environment, for 
example. 

Claims 11 and 12 provide additional limitations concerning updating of usage control elements (i.e.; 
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary 
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared 
data control. 


Serial No. 09/41 IJO 5 
Art Unit. 2125 


' page 3- 


Claims 29 and 31 add limitations concerning plural objects being grouped within a package of the method 
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of 
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for 
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements). 

Claim 30 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a 
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made. 

Claims 45-47, 51 and 53 add limitations concerning various types of data enclosed in (i.e.; the contents of) 
the packages of the method of Count I, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill 
in the art, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments. 

Correspondence of claims of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II) to Count 1 above. 

Independent claims 30, 39, 56, 64 and 65, and claims 31 and 66, include all the limitations of the method 
of Count 1, while adding the limitation that the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification 
would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because 
^ encrypting control data was well-known to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least 
by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 47961 81 , see at least col. 1 3). 

hidependent claim 45 is the apparatus version of claim 30, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above. 

Independent claim 48 is the apparatus version of claim 39, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above. 

Claims 32, 34, 46 and 68 add limitations concerning various types of control data included in the method 
of Count I, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the 
instant invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution 
environments. 

Claims 35, 37, 62 and 69, and additionally claims 39 and 48, provide for the "miiror" of the method of Count 
1 (i.e.; Count 1 provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user, 
while these listed claimis provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control 
elements), which would have been an obvious consequence of tiie method of Count 1. 

Claim 36 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an 
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Internet 
environment, for example. . 


Serial No. 09/411205 
Art Unit 2125 


- page 4 - 


Claims 38, 44, 51, 61 and 63, and additionally claims 56 and 64, provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the 
data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an obvious 
variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared 
data environment, for example. 

Claims 40 and 41 provide additional limitations concerning updating of usage control elements (i.e.; 
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary 
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared 
data control. 

Claims 58 and 60 add limitations concerning plural objects being grouped within a package of the method 
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of 
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for 
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements). 

Claim 59 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a 
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made. 

Correspondence of claims of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) to Count 1 above. 

Independent claims 1 , 1 0, 22 and 29, and claim 2, include all the limitations of the method of Count 1 , while 
adding two limitations. The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As 
presented above, with regard to Benson et al. H, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, the 
second added limitation provides that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have 
been inherent to any data distribution environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of 
the data, which would not be possible without some form of storage. 

Independent claim 16 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 1, similar to Count 1 as noted above. 
Independent claim 1 8 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 10, similar to Count 1 as noted above. 
Claims 3, 5 and 17 add limitations concerning various types of control data included in the method of Count 
1, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant 
invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments. 

Claims 6, 8 and 27, and additionally claims 10 and 18, provide for the "mirror" of the method of Count 1 
(i.e.; Count 1 provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user, 
while these listed claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control 
elements), which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1 . 


Serial No, 09/41 J JOS 
Art Unit 2125 


' page 5- 


Claim 7 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an 
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to a licensing/Internet 
environment, for example. 

Claims 9, 15, 19, 26 and 28, and additionally claims 22 and 29, provide for repeated (re)-packaging of the 
data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an obvious 
variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a shared 
data environment, for example. 

Claims 11 and 12 provide additional limitations concerning updating of usage control elements (i.e.; 
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordinary 
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared 
data control. 

Claims 23 and 25 add limitations concerning plural objects being grouped within a package of the method 
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made, in view of 
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for 
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements). 

Claim 24 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a 
network, such network transmission of data having been well-known at the time the instant invention was made. 

Correspondence of claims of SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et al.) to Count 1 above. 

Claims 91-93, 95-102, 105-109 and 112-119 are identical to claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-19 and 22-29 of PN 
5845281 (Benson et al. I) above. Accordingly, the following applies: 

Independent claims 91, 100, 112 and 1 19, and claim 92, include all the limitations of the method of Count 
1, while adding two limitations. The first limitation provides that die general set of control data is also encrypted. 
As presented above, with regard to Benson et al. H, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, 
the second added limitation provides that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have 
been inherent to any data distribution environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of 
the data, which would not be possible without some form of storage. 

Independent claim 106 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 91, similar to Count 1 as noted above. 

Independent claim 108 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 100, similar to Count 1 as noted 

above. 


Serial No. 09/411,205 
Art Unit 2125 


- page 6- 


Claim 120 is substantially similar to the method of Count 1, except that equivalent language from the 
specification of Ginter et al. has been used. 

Claim 135 is the apparatus version of claim 120, similar to the method of Count 1 as noted above, 
aaims 93. 95 and 107 add limitations concerning various types of control data included in the method of 
Count 1, all of which would have been obvious choices, to one having ordinaiy skill in the art, at the time the instant 
invention was made, as a consequence of implementation in particular well-known data distribution environments. 
Coiresponding claims 121, 122, 124 and 136 use the equivalent language noted above. 

Claims 96, 98 and 1 17, and additionally claims 100 and 108, provide for the "mirror" of the method of Count 
1 (i.e.; Count 1 provides for the packaging of a data object with its usage control elements for transmission to a user 
while these listed claims provide for the user receiving such objects and using them according to the usage control' 
elements), which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of Count 1. Corresponding claims 125, 
127, 129, 137 and 146 use the equivalent language noted above. 

Claim 97 adds the limitation of requiring payment to the method of Count 1, which would have been an 
obvious variation, in view of the well-known application of data object management to . a licensing/Intemet 
environment, for example. Coiresponding claim 126 uses the equivalent language noted above. 

aaims99, 105, 109, 116 and 118, and additionally claims 112and 119, provide for repeated (re)-packaging 
of the data objects (i.e.; the sharing of data objects) of the method of Count 1, wherein such would have been an 
obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data objects in such a 
shared data environment, for example. Corresponding claims 128, 134, 138, 141, 145. 147 and 148 use the 
equivalent language noted above. 

Claims 101 and 102 provide additional limitations concerning updating of usage control elements (i e • 
decrementing number of uses), which would have been implementation specific, and obvious to one having ordina,^ 
skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, since number of uses was a well-known criteria for shared 
data control. Corresponding claims 130 and 131 use the equivalfent language noted above. 

Claims 1 13 and 1 15 add limitations concerning plural objects being grouped within a package of the method 
of Count 1, which would have been an obvious variation, at the time the instant invention was made in view of 
bandwidth considerations for network data transmission (i.e.; it was well-known in the art to packetize data for 
transmission in a network, in order to reduce bandwidth requirements). Coiresponding claims 142 and 144 use the 
equivalent language noted above. 

Claim 1 14 adds the limitation that transmission of a data package of the method of Count 1 is across a 
network, such network transmission of data havmg been well-known at the time the instant invention was made 
Corresponding claim 143 uses the equivalent language noted above. 


Serial No. 09/411205 
Art Unit 2125 


-page 7- 


COUNT 2: 

- claim 4 of SN 09/32 1 ,386 (Benson et al. HI), with the following corresponding claims: 
SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. EI): claims 4, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 28 and 38 
SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II): claims 33, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 57 and 67 
PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I): claims 4, 13 and 14 
SN 09/41 1,205 (Ginter et al.): claims 94, 103, 104, 123, 132 and 133 

** Since the claims of this count are dependent upon the claims of Count 1, the following analysis tracks Count 1 
precisely, with regard to the relationship between the claims in Benson et al. I, n and HI. The rationales have been 
repeated here, with appropriate claim numbering. 

Correspondence of claims of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI) to Count 2 above. 

Dependent claim 4 is Count 2. 

Dependent claim 13 is substantially similar to Count 2, except that it depends from parent claim 10, which 
differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parent Count 1 was provided 
for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 1. 

Dependent claims 14 and 28 add the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data, 
which is an inherent purpose of using control data. 

Dependent claim 18 is the apparatus version of claim 4, similar to the method of Count 2 as noted above. 

Dependent claim 20 is the apparatus version of claim 13, similar to the method of Count 2 as noted above. 

Dependent claim 21 adds the limitation that the encryption uses a specific type of algorithm, which was a 
well-known type of algorithm at the time the instant invention was made. As admitted by Applicant, at page 10 of 
the instant specification, it was well-known in the art to use "any appropriate, commercially available [encryption] 
module." 

Dependent claim 38 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that it depends from parent 
claim 36, which differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, various steps of storing and/or 
concatenating are omitted, such being obvious since omission of an element and its fimction in a combination where 
the remaining elements perform the same ftinctions as before involves only routine skill in the art. 


Serial No. 09/411.205 
Art Unit 2125 


- page 8 - 


Correspondence of claims of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II) to Count 2 above. 

Dependent claim 33 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 1, while adding the limitation that 
the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification would have been obvious, to one having 
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the mstant invention was made, because encrypting control data was well-known 
to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at 
least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 4796181, see at least col. 13). 

Dependent claim 42 is substantially similar to Count 2. except that it depends from parent claim 39, which 
differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parent Count 1 was provided 
for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 1 . 

Dependent claims 43 and 57 add the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data, 
which is an inherent purpose of using control data. 

Dependent claim 47 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 33, similar to Count 2 as noted above. 
Dependent claim 49 is the apparatus version of the method of claim 42, similar to Count 2 as noted above. 
Dependent claim 50 adds the limitation that the encryption uses a specific type of algorithm, which was a 
well-known type of algorithm at the time the instant invention was made. As admitted by Applicant, at page 10 of 
the instant ^ecification, it was well-known in the art to use "any appropriate, commercially available [encr>ption] 
module." 

Dependent claim 67 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2. except that it depends from parent 
claim 65 which differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, various steps of storing and/or concatenating 
are omitted, such being obvious since omission of an element and its fiinction in a combination where the remaining 
elements perform the same fiinctions as before involves only routine skill in the art. 

Correspondence of claims of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) to Count 2 above. 

Dependent claim 4 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 2, while adding two limitations, nie 
first limitation provides that the general set of confrol data is also enacted. As presented above, with regard to 
Benson et al. H, such a modification would have been obvious. AdditionaUy, the second added limitation provides 
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherit to any data distribution 
environment, since die purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible 
without some form of storage. 

Dependent claim 13 is substantially similar to Count 2. except that it depends from parent claim 10 which 
differs from parent Count 1 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of par^t Count 1 was provided 
for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 1. 


Serial No. 09/411205 
Art Unit 2125 


-page 9 ' 


Dqjendent claim 14 adds the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data, which 
is an inherent purpose of using control data. 

Correspondence of claims of SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et al.) to Count 2 above. 

Dependent claims 94, 103 and 104 are identical to claims 4, 13 and 14 of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) 
above. Accordingly, the following applies: 

Dependent claim 94 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 2, while adding two limitations. The 
first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard to 
Benson et al. II, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, the second added limitation provides 
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to any data distribution 
environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible 
without some form of storage, is identical to Count 2. 

Dependent claim 123 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that equivalent language from 
the specification of Ginter et al, has been used. 

Dependent claim 103 is substantially similar to the method of Count 2, except that it depends fi*om parent 
claim 100, which differs from parent Count 2 as specified above. Namely, the "mirror" of the method of parent 
Count 2 was provided for, which would have been an obvious consequence of the method of parent Count 2. 
Corresponding claim 132 uses the equivalent language noted above. 

Dependent claim 104 adds the limitation that processor execution is dependent upon the control data, which 
is an inherent purpose of using control data. Conresponding claim 133 uses the equivalent language noted above. 

COUNT 3: 

~" 23 

- claim 2Q of SN 09/32 1 ,386 (Benson et al. IH), with the following conresponding claims: 
SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. HI): claims 23 and 24 
SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. H): claims 52, 53 and 55 
PN 584528 1 (Benson et al. I): claims 20 and 2 1 
SN 09/41 1,205 (Ginter etal.): claims 110, 111, 139 and 140 

** Again, although these claims are independent of the claims in Count I , the following analysis still tracks Counts 
1 and 2 precisely, with regard to the relationship between the claims in Benson et al. I, H and m. The rationales have 
been repeated here, with appropriate claim numbering. 


Serial No. 09/411,205 - page 10 - 

Art Unit 2125 


Correspondence of claims of SN 09/321^86 (Benson et al. HI) to Count 3 above. 

Independent claim 23 is Count 3. 

Claim 24 adds a limitation concerning various types of data enclosed in the packages of the method of Count 
3, all of which v^ould have been obvious choices, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a consequence of 
implementation in a particular data sharing environment. 

Correspondence of claims of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et aL II) to Count 3 above. 

Independent claim 52 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 3, while adding the limitation that 
the general set of control data is also encrypted. Such a modification would have been obvious, to one having 
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was made, because encrypting control data was well-known 
to enhance overall security of data distribution (for example: taught at least by Hellman, U.S. PN 4658093, see at 
least claim 5; and Wiedemer, U.S. PN 4796181, see at least col. 13). 

Claim 53 adds a limitation concerning various types of data enclosed in the packages of the method of Count 
3, all of which would have been obvious choices of design, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a consequence 
of implementation in a particular environment. 

Claim 55 additionally provides for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects of the method of Count 3, 
wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and 
accessibility of the data objects in a shared data environment, for example. 

Correspondence of claims of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) to Count 3 above. 

Independent claim 20 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 3, while adding two limitations. 
The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard 
to Benson et al. H, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, the second added limitation provides 
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to any data distribution 
environment, since the purpose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible 
without some form of storage. 

Claim 21 additionally provides for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects of the method of Count 3, 
wherein such would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and 
accessibility of the data objects in a shared data environment, for example. 


Serial No. 09/41 1J05 
Art Unit 2125 


-page 11 - 


Correspondence of claims of SN 09/411,205 (Ginter et al.) to Count 3 above. 

Claims 1 10 and 1 1 1 are identical to claims 20 and 21 of PN 5845281 (Benson et al. I) above. Accordingly, 
the following applies: 

Independent claim 1 10 includes all the limitations of the method of Count 2, while adding two limitations. 
The first limitation provides that the general set of control data is also encrypted. As presented above, with regard 
to Benson et al n, such a modification would have been obvious. Additionally, the second added limitation provides 
that data objects and usage control data are stored in memory. Such would have been inherent to aiiy data distribution 
environment, since the puipose of distribution is for accessibility and use of the data, which would not be possible 
without some form of storage. 

Independent claim 139 is substantially similar to the method of Count 3, except that equivalent language from 
the specification of Ginter et al. has been used. 

Claim 1 1 1 provides for repeated (re)-packaging of the data objects of the method of Count 3, wherein such 
would have been an obvious variation for the well-known purpose of providing versatility and accessibility of the data 
objects in a shared data environment, for example. Corresponding claim 140 uses the equivalent language noted 
above. 


**NOTE: claim 54 of SN 09/164,606 (Benson et al. II) and claims 25 and 26 of SN 09/321,386 (Benson et al. Ill) 
do not have corresponding interfering claims in SN 09/41 1,205 (Ginter et al.). 


Serial No. 09/411.205 
Art Unit 2125 


Correlation of claims in application copied from PN 5845281 to claims in patent: 

A ppl. S.N. 09/41 1 .205 (Ginter et PN 5845281 Benson et al. D 


91 

1 
1 


£, 

93 

t. 
J 

94 

4 

95 


96 


97 

y 1 

7 


Q 

o 


0 


1 n 

lU 

101 

1 1 
1 1 

102 

19 

103 

1 -J 

104 

14 

105 

1 ^ 

106 

16 

107 

17 

108 

18 

109 

19 

1 1 n 

1 lU 

20 

111 

21 

112 

22 

113 

23 

114 

24 

115 

25 

116 

26 

117 

27 

118 

28 

119 

29