`
`European Patent Office
`
`80298 Miinchen
`
`Munich, November 18, 2009
`
`European Patent Application No. 96 910 762.2
`Kinetech, Inc.
`Our refi
`
`D 11340] W0/EP Al/Tef
`
`In response to the Communication dated May 5, 2009:
`
`I.
`
`Applicant submits, without prejudice, an amended set of claims 1 to 26 to
`
`replace the pending claims 1 to 58. Copies of the amended claims are en-
`
`closed in clean and mark-up formats.
`
`The new set of amended claims comprises one independent claim on a sys-
`
`tem (claim 1) and one on a method (claim 15). The amended claims are
`
`based on the pending claims and the original disclosure as shown in the fol-
`
`lowing table:
`
`as
`BARDEHLE
`PAGENBERG
`DUST
`ALTENBURG
`GEISSLER
`
`EPO jfiunlch
`
`1' 3- N°V- 2909
`
`Udo W. Altenburg
`Galileiplatz I
`81679 Miinchen
`
`Te1'+49(89)92 80 5_0
`Fax +49 (89) 92 80 5-444
`altenburg@bardehle.de
`WWW-bamehle-°°m
`
`MUNCHEN
`DUSSELDORF
`PARIS
`BARCELONA
`ALICANTE
`
`EMCVMW 1021
`EMCVMW 1021
`
`
`
`£6
`BARDEHLE
`PAGENBEHG
`DUST
`ALTENBUFIG
`GEISSLER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amended claim Pending claim Original claim
`
`1 Item 9, age 62, 63j
`Peee ee
`
`—— I
`
`License table, page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Item 9, page 62, 63
`
`Page 23, line 9
`
`Page 23, line 12
`
`Page 23, line 33
`
`new
`‘NW
`“ew
`eew
`
`O
`
`New
`
`r-‘\)UI-l>UJl\)v-*
`
`r—A
`
`._i
`
`Page 22, lines 16-22
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 40, lines 1-5
`
`
`
`- Page 8, line 28
`Page 11 bridging page 12
`
`22 to 25
`
`ee
`New
`
`New
`
`Correspond to amended
`
`system claims 11-13, 15
`
` Page 23, line 9
`
`Page 23, line 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8, line 28
`
`26
`
`54
`
`new
`
`
`
`New :
`New
`New
`New
`
`
`
`
`
`£3
`BARDEHLE
`PAGENBEHG
`DOST
`ALTENBURG
`GEISSLEH
`
`The amended claims now recite specifically the aspect of licensing in the con-
`
`text of access control; the basic mechanism is the use of the specific identifier
`
`“true name” described in the application so that all features related therewith
`
`are also disclosed in connection with the licensing aspect.
`
`The aspect of licensing is discussed in the specification specifically under the
`
`following quotes:
`
`Page 13, lines 3 and 4: using the “true name”, i.e. the unique identifier
`
`for a particular data item for accounting and licensing purposes; this quote has
`
`also been used to define the specific problem underlying the present invention.
`
`Page 15, lines 20 to 24: the license table identifying files which may
`
`only be used by licensed users, in a manner independent of their name or loca-
`
`tion.
`
`Page 20: lines 18 et seq. and Fig. 9: format of the license table
`
`Page 62 line 24 to page 63 line 22: track for licensing purposes
`
`Page 7, lines 17 to 21: “the system tracks possession of specific data
`
`items according to content by owner ..,” in connection with the aspect of ac-
`
`counting, which is closely related to licensing.
`
`The original disclosure to support the claim dependency is demonstrated in the
`
`above table so that item 2.2 is also answered taking into consideration the
`
`greatly reduced number of claims in the amended set. The objection under Art.
`
`123 (2) EPC in item 2.1 of the Communication is therefore met.
`
`In amended claim 6, the term “entity” has been used to denote both users of the
`
`system and the system components that may request access to a data item; cf.
`
`with respect to licensed “users” page 15, line 20 et seq. and page 20 describing
`
`the licensing table and with respect to system components page 62, step B (i)
`
`which refers to “the user processor .. authorized..”.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q
`BARDEHLE
`PAGENBERG
`DOST
`ALTENBURG
`GEISSLER
`
`Pages 5 and 6 on file are further amended to briefly acknowledge document D2
`
`and to bring the description into conformity with the amended claims. Copies
`
`of the amended pages are enclosed.
`
`II.
`
`The amended independent claims are now clearly directed to the licensing fea-
`
`ture described in particular on the pages of the original application cited above.
`
`The suggestion by the examining division in item 3 of the Communication is
`
`thus followed.
`
`Neither document D1 nor D2 teach or suggest this use of access control in con-
`
`nection with licensing of content based on identifiers in the format of “true
`
`names”. The invention as defined in the amended claims is therefore both
`
`novel and has inventive step.
`
`In case further substantive objections arise against the patentability of the ap-
`
`plication, which cannot be resolved in the written proceedings, an interview or
`
`oral proceedings in accordance with Art. 116 EPC are requested.
`
`
`
` Dr. 0 gang Bublak
`
`European Patent Attorney
`
`Encls.
`
`- Amended claims 1 to 26 (clean and marked-up)
`- Amended description pages 5, 5a and 6