Appeal No. 1998-2658 Page 11
Application No. 08/507,981
program identification information in Orbach’s ordering system
onto the medium as a first identification information. The
examiner (answer, page 4) further relies upon the name of the
software on the disk as the second identification means. We
find that Orbach teaches writing the name of the software
(program identification) onto the program on the disk (col. 3,
lines 57-59). However, as the second information means is
already written on the disk by Orbach, we see no reason or
suggestion as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have modified Orbach to have added the same identification
information to a nonaccessible area of the disk, as a first
identification means (answer, page 6), and then compare the
two identification means before writing the software to the
disk.
The examiner’s reasoning for the modification (answer,
page 6) is to provide data security and prevent software from
being unlawfully copied. We agree with the examiner that
Orbach suggests adding anti copying protection onto the
written program (function 10) (col. 4, lines 1 and 2). In
addition, the prior art to Itami, IBM and Orbach as a whole
suggest comparing information prior to copying, to ensure that
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007