Appeal No. 1998-2658 Page 13
Application No. 08/507,981
Firstly, the appellants acknowledge (brief, page 13) that
“[t]he combination, then, of the disclosures of Orbach and
IEBCOPY is a merchandising system for computer software which
tracks the customer’s ID and which verifies the
volume/serial/label number on a medium before unloading data
to it” (emphasis added). Secondly, even if IBM inherently
teaches comparison of first and second file identification
information before copying a file, the resultant teachings of
the prior art as a whole would only suggest that Orbach’s
system verifies the name of the program before copying the
program onto the disk. The combined teachings of Orbach, IBM
and Itami would still not suggest “the claimed combinations
including information stored in an area in a medium that is
inaccessible to a user and which requires comparison of first
and second information before . . . writing to the medium” as
asserted by the appellants (brief, page 14).
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is therefore
reversed. As claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 12 depend from claim 1,
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007