Appeal 2006-3001
Application 10/747,840
to teach or suggest writing electronic information to an optical disk on a
binding line. The second issue, therefore, is whether Hill II discloses writing
electronic information to an optical disk on a binding line, and, thus, whether
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 13, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Hill II.
As explained supra, the term "optical disk" refers to any storage disk
that is read or played using a laser. Hill II discloses (abstract) a system for
inserting verified smart cards into corresponding carriers. The system
includes readers for verifying the embossed, magnetic, and IC chip data as
well as data encoded on a printed carrier. Nowhere does Hill II mention
optical disks or a binding line.
The Examiner (Answer 3) points to elements 32, 44, and 46 as optical
disks and (Answer 7) asserts that "I.C. chip 32, and bar code 44/46, each of
which [are] written offline, [are] carrying electronic information, and being
optically read." The Examiner appears to read "optical disk" for claims 11,
13, 14, and 22 in the same way as for claims 1, 3, 6, 21, and 22, as discussed
supra. However, neither an IC chip nor a bar code satisfies the well-
established definition of "optical disk." Therefore, Hill II fails to disclose
writing to an optical. Consequently, Hill II does not anticipate claims 11,
13, 14, and 22.
The Examiner (Answer 3) asserts that claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 21,
and 22 are unpatentable over Pace in view of Hill I. Appellants contend
(Br. 11) that Pace does not teach or suggest writing information on the CD
while the CD is on the binding line. Further, Appellants contend (Br. 11)
that neither reference teaches or suggests using the method of Hill I with an
optical disk. The third issue, therefore, is the combination of Pace and Hill I
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013