Appeal No. 2000-0753
Application 08/909,545
measuring means (step 819b); this physical feature information is
encrypted (step 819c); and is recorded as a barcode signal on the
disk by a laser (step 819d).
Claim 1 recites "placing at least one mark at each of at
least one corresponding predetermined location on an optical
medium" (emphasis added). The limitation does not define the
nature of the mark, i.e., it does not describe that the mark is
an area where the format is incorrect (e.g., not an eight-to-
fourteen modulation (EFM) as required industry standard), so the
nonreflective portions of Oshima '301 can be considered a mark
(at least as far as this first limitation goes). Oshima '301
discloses (col. 13, lines 28-31): "Laser markings are formed
at random in the anti-piracy mark formation process at the
factory. No laser markings formed in this manner can be
identical in physical feature." (Emphasis added.) Clearly, a
random location is not a "predetermined location" as claimed.
The examiner does not address this limitation and, thus, the
rejection must fail based on the first phrase of the claim.
Nevertheless, we address all of the claim limitations.
Claim 1 continues, "which at least one location is within a
continuous spiral track of said optical medium." Oshima '301
discloses that the marks are formed by removing the reflective
coating to form a nonreflective portion in a radial direction,
cutting the spiral track at several places (figures 2A-2C;
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007