Appeal No. 1998-2658 Page 15
Application No. 08/507,981
medium. The anti copying protection of Itami would prevent
illegal software from being read from the medium. However, in
Itami, the second identification information is in the host
computer, stored in capacity storage unit 22. We find no
suggestion in the applied prior art for locating both the
first and second identification information on the medium,
except from the appellants’ disclosure. Accordingly, we
conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of claim 7. The rejection of claim
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is therefore reversed.
Turning next to claims 8-10, as Tamada does not overcome
the deficiencies of Orbach in view of IBM and Itami, and
independent claim 9 contains similar language as claim 1, the2
rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
2In claim 9, line 5, it would appear that the “second reading means”
should read as “second information reading means” to be consistent with lines
9 and 10 of claim 9. We consider this a formal matter which the examiner can
address subsequent to this appeal.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007