Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
dumped. The initial lines of paragraph [0005] state “[d]evelopers have attempted
to establish a ‘before’ image by seeding the RAM with a pattern of data (i.e.,
signature) that can be extracted from the dumped data for comparison and
verification.” Thus, it was known in the art to seed a portion of memory with a
signature that may later be abstracted from data that is dumped and therefore used
for comparison and verification purposes. Certain disadvantages are further noted
because of the swapping out of data during a crash of a system. In paragraph
[0006] appellants’ contribution to the art is said to be the ability to lock a
corresponding portion of memory from the swapping operation. As otherwise
disclosed, appellants’ locking is merely allocating a memory portion.
With this background in mind, we turn to appellants’ arguments beginning at
page 9 of the principal brief on appeal. At page 10 of this brief, appellants assert
that the comparison file 180 in figure 1 of Price contains signature information that
is not dumped as part of the crash memory images 190 also in this figure.
Appellants go on to emphasize that no dumped file created in the Price reference
includes a memory portion that is seeded with a signature pattern. Appellants
continue by arguing that the calculated and stored signature information of Price
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007