Appeal No. 2000-0753
Application 08/909,545
As previously observed, the nature of the mark is not
claimed. However, the limitation does require that the mark,
whatever it is, is capable of being reproduced by a mass
reproduction recorder. The examiner has not shown that there is
a device in existence which can reproduce the mark in Oshima '301
and, so, has not shown that this limitation is met. We also
agree with appellant that a mass reproduction recorder has been
described in the specification and that the laser beam recorder
(LBR) structure involves more than simply an optical head as
stated by the examiner. The important thing is that the mark can
be reproduced only by a mass reproduction recorder.
Claim 1 further states "and which mark, when read by a
device adapted to read data contained in said continuous spiral
track is incapable of being read, and, thereby prevents writing a
copy of said mark on an optically recordable medium." The
examiner does address this limitation and has not shown that a
conventional optical reading device cannot read the mark.
Claim 1 recites "adding an executable code module to said
optical medium, said executable code module adapted to verify
said at least one mark, and allow access to data and programs on
said optical medium after said verification of said at least one
mark." The examiner finds that "when the mark is read by a
device (optical head) it prompts the device to stop recording and
reproducing operation, a software within the disk area prompts
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007