\relax 
\citation{H1:DstarGluonDens99,ZEUS:dijetDstar99,ZEUS:dstargammap02}
\citation{H1:DstarGluonDens99}
\citation{Frixione:totHQ95,Frixione:diffHQ95}
\citation{MRST1:98}
\citation{CTEQ5:99}
\citation{Kniehl:massless02}
\citation{FONLL:01}
\citation{pythia61}
\citation{CCFM:Ciaf88,CCFM:CatFioMarch90a,CCFM:CatFioMarch90b,CCFM:March95}
\citation{cascade,cascadeII}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Data Selection}{1}}
\citation{PDG2002}
\citation{pythia61}
\citation{cascade,cascadeII}
\citation{Frixione:totHQ95,Frixione:diffHQ95}
\citation{Peterson83}
\citation{CTEQ5:99}
\citation{GRV:92}
\citation{Gladilin:c->D*99}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Cross Sections}{2}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Comparison with QCD Calculations}{2}}
\citation{BKKfrag:98}
\citation{Kniehl:massless02}
\citation{CTEQ6:02}
\citation{AFG:94}
\citation{FONLL:01}
\citation{CaccNas:unpub03}
\citation{Kartvel:78}
\citation{CTEQ5:99}
\citation{GRV:92}
\citation{Gladilin:c->D*99}
\citation{pythia61}
\citation{CTEQ5:99}
\citation{GRV:92}
\citation{cascade,cascadeII}
\citation{charmKtfact:02}
\bibstyle{nextsummer}
\bibcite{H1:DstarGluonDens99}{1}
\bibcite{ZEUS:dijetDstar99}{2}
\bibcite{ZEUS:dstargammap02}{3}
\bibcite{Frixione:totHQ95}{4}
\bibcite{Frixione:diffHQ95}{5}
\bibcite{MRST1:98}{6}
\bibcite{CTEQ5:99}{7}
\bibcite{Kniehl:massless02}{8}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Summary}{4}}
\bibcite{FONLL:01}{9}
\bibcite{pythia61}{10}
\bibcite{CCFM:Ciaf88}{11}
\bibcite{CCFM:CatFioMarch90a}{12}
\bibcite{CCFM:CatFioMarch90b}{13}
\bibcite{CCFM:March95}{14}
\bibcite{cascade}{15}
\bibcite{cascadeII}{16}
\bibcite{PDG2002}{17}
\bibcite{Peterson83}{18}
\bibcite{GRV:92}{19}
\bibcite{Gladilin:c->D*99}{20}
\bibcite{BKKfrag:98}{21}
\bibcite{CTEQ6:02}{22}
\bibcite{AFG:94}{23}
\bibcite{CaccNas:unpub03}{24}
\bibcite{Kartvel:78}{25}
\bibcite{charmKtfact:02}{26}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Mass difference $\Delta m = m_{K\pi \pi _s} - m_{K\pi }$ distribution of the $D^*$-candidates. The solid line represents the result of a fit as described in the text.}}{6}}
\newlabel{fig:deltam}{{1}{6}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Differential $D^*$-photoproduction cross section $d\sigma /dp_t$\ in the kinematic range $Q^2 < $ 0.01 \rm  GeV$^2$, 171 $< W <$ 256 \rm  GeV\ and $|\eta (D^*)| <$ 1.5. The H1 data are shown as points with error bars (inner: statistical, outer: statistical and systematic added in quadrature). A common normalisation uncertainty of 4.4\% is not included. The data are compared with (a) NLO QCD calculations in the ``3-flavour massive'' and in the ``4-flavour massless'' scheme, (b) NLO QCD calculations in the ``3-flavour massive'' and the ``matched'' FONLL scheme and (c) PYTHIA and CASCADE. The result of the central choice of the parameters of the ``3-flavour massive'' calculation is shown as a histogram in (a) and (b). The shaded band indicates its uncertainty obtained as described in the text. The ``4-flavour massless'' and ``matched'' FONLL calculations are shown as dashed-dotted lines whereas the dashed lines represent their upper (lower) limit. }}{7}}
\newlabel{fig:xsecpt}{{2}{7}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Differential $D^*$-photoproduction cross section $d\sigma /d\eta $\ in the kinematic range $Q^2 < $ 0.01 \rm  GeV$^2$, 171 $< W <$ 256 \rm  GeV\ and $p_t(D^*) >$ 2.5 \rm  GeV. The H1 data are shown as points with error bars (inner: statistical, outer: statistical and systematic added in quadrature). A common normalisation uncertainty of 4.4\% is not included. The data are compared with (a) NLO QCD calculations in the ``3-flavour massive'' and in the ``4-flavour massless'' scheme and (b) PYTHIA and CASCADE. The result of the central choice of the parameters of the ``3-flavour massive'' calculation is shown as a histogram. The shaded band indicates its uncertainty obtained as described in the text. The ``4-flavour massless'' calculation is shown as the dashed-dotted line whereas the dashed lines represent its upper (lower) limit. PYTHIA is divided into its different components. The dotted line is the resolved photon component from light partons in the photon, the dashed-dotted line adds the charm excitation process and the full line finally adds the direct component. }}{8}}
\newlabel{fig:xseceta}{{3}{8}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Differential $D^*$-photoproduction cross section $d\sigma /dW$\ in the kinematic range $Q^2 < $ 0.01 \rm  GeV$^2$, $p_t(D^*) >$ 2.5 \rm  GeV\ and $|\eta (D^*)| <$ 1.5. The H1 data are shown as points with error bars (inner: statistical, outer: statistical and systematic added in quadrature). A common normalisation uncertainty of 4.4\% is not included. The data are compared with (a) NLO QCD calculations in the ``3-flavour massive'' and in the ``4-flavour massless'' scheme and (b) PYTHIA and CASCADE. The result of the central choice of the parameters of the ``3-flavour massive'' calculation is shown as a histogram. The shaded band indicates its uncertainty obtained as described in the text. The ``4-flavour massless'' calculation is shown as dashed-dotted line whereas the dashed lines represent its upper (lower) limit. }}{9}}
\newlabel{fig:xsecw}{{4}{9}}