Appeal No. 1998-1104
Application No. 08/380,985
part of their functionality, but with
maximum security with respect to other
parts. Typically, this problem is solved
by sacrificing efficiency for security and
executing the entire extended API in the
SMM.
The claimed invention provides a
solution to this problem[.][sic, by]
Applicant has solved this problem by
storing code for implementing some (i.e.,
less than all) of a plurality of the
functions of an API in secure (i.e., SMM)
memory space and storing code for
implementing the rest of the functions of
the same API in non-secure memory space, a
feature which is neither taught nor
suggested by the cited combination of
references. In addition, because none of
the cited references teach or suggest
storing code for implementing certain
functions in secure memory space and code
for implementing the remaining functions in
unsecure memory space, it logically follows
that the references also fail to teach
determining whether code for implementing a
called one of the API functions is stored
in said secure memory space, as all
functions are stored in the same memory
space.
As conceded by the Examiner, Dayan
fails to teach operating in [a] system
management mode and an applications program
interface, for which Thorson and Admitted
Prior Art are respectively cited. However,
even assuming arguendo that the references
are properly combinable, the combination
teaches, at best, executing the entire API
in SMM, which is exactly the problem solved
by Applicant’s invention (see
[Specification,] page 3, lines 4-11).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007