Appeal No. 1998-0147
Application 08/446,278
selected one of a password and a password coincidence
detection signal and replacing the digital signal with
another bit so as to prevent a user from reproducing a
correct digital signal."
Kramer
The Examiner does not specifically address claim 17.
The closest statement we find to addressing this limitation
is the following (Paper No. 18, p. 4; EA5): "As to claims
13, 14, 18-20, Kramer's system also has control over the
security conditions/counts of copying of the digital data."
Appellants argue that the Examiner has given no indication
where claim 17's security means can be found in Kramer
(Br14).
Kramer discloses that the controller can be programmed
to keep a count of the number of times that digital data is
reproduced and to prevent further reproductions above a
specified maximum number of times to prevent unlicensed
copying (col. 5, lines 15-22). While this might be
considered a "security feature," it does not come close to
meeting the functions recited in claim 17. Accordingly, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007