Appeal No. 2000-0753
Application 08/909,545
Appellant argues that Oshima '301 teaches the use of a
physical mark at a physical film level, in a secondary recording
process, rather than the master disk level physical mark (Br7).
The examiner responds that the claims do not require the mark to
be created by the mastering machine and do not recite the process
of how the marks are recorded on the disk (EA6).
The examiner is correct. We find no language in the
limitation at issue, or in claim 1 as a whole, that distinguishes
over placing the mark by a secondary recording process or that
requires the creating the mark at the master disk level.
Appellant has not pointed to any specific limitations in the
claims to support his argument.
Claim 1 continues, "which mark is incapable of being
reproduced except by a mass reproduction recorder." The examiner
finds that "the mark is reproduced by a mass reproduction
recorder (optical head)" (FR2). Appellant argues that the
examiner errs in construing the mass reproduction recorder as an
optical head because a mass reproduction recorder is defined in
the specification at page 5, lines 21-33, as a particular piece
of equipment which is much narrower than an "optical head"
(Br7-8). The examiner responds that "[t]he claims do not exclude
the use of a magnetic head, bar code optical probe..etc. the
claim merely recite[s] the use of a mass reproduction recorder
and not an optical mass reproduction recorder" (EA6-7).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007