Appeal No. 1998-2658 Page 6
Application No. 08/507,981
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7,
and 12 based on the teachings of Orbach in view of IBM and
Itami. We begin with claim 1.
The appellants assert (brief, pages 10 and 11) that
More specifically, claims 1, 7 and 9 recite first
information reading means for reading a first
identification information stored in an area to which a
user is inhibited from accessing on a medium, second
information reading means for reading a second
identification information contained in software,
comparing means for comparing the first and second
identification information, and software writing (or
reading) means for writing (or reading) the software to
(or from) the medium when the comparing means recognizes
that the first identification information corresponds to
the second identification means.
According to the appellants (brief, page 14) the
references “do not teach or suggest the claimed combinations
including information stored in an area on a medium that is
inaccessible to a user and which requires comparison of first
and second information before . . . writing to the medium.”
The appellants acknowledge (brief, page 13) that “[t]he
combination, then, of the disclosures of Orbach, IEBCOPY, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007