Appeal No. 1998-2658 Page 12
Application No. 08/507,981
the correct program is copied to the disk before giving the
disk to the user. However, even if anti copying protection
were written on the program of Orbach as taught by Itami, and
even if Itami’s identification information were provided in an
area inaccessible to the user, the limitations of claim 1
would still not be met. Claim 1 recites “software writing
means for writing the software to the medium only if said
comparing means recognizes that the first identification
information corresponds to the second identification
information.” Thus, claim 1 requires correspondence of the
first and second identification information prior to writing
the software to the medium. The identification information
provided in a user inaccessible area as taught by Itami would
only be useable to prevent copying of the software from the
disk. This is not the same as preventing writing to the disk.
With regard to the IBM reference, both the examiner
(supp. answer, page 2) and the appellants (reply brief, pages
1-3 and supp. reply brief, pages 2 and 3) dispute whether a
comparing function inherently occurs when utilizing IBM’s copy
utility. We need not decide this point for two reasons.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007