Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
does not “remotely suggest a signature pattern that is seeded in a locked portion of
the system memory that is dumped, including the signature, upon experiencing a
system crash as claimed by Appellant” as set forth in the sentence bridging pages
10 and 11 of the principal brief on appeal.
We do not agree with this assessment of Price from two major perspectives.
Initially, the feature actually recited in independent claim 1 on appeal is “seeding
the locked portion of the memory with a signature.” Thus, appellants’ actual
argument that the signature pattern that is seeded in a locked memory portion of
the memory that is dumped is not taught or suggested is misplaced since this
feature is not claimed in the same terms. In other words, the actual seeding of the
locked portion of the memory with a signature is not stated to occur “in” the locked
memory portion.
Our second major consideration also involves two parts. The initial part has
already been set forth in our assessment of appellants’ own recognition of the prior
art that it was known in the art to establish an image of memory by seeding the data
in a portion of the memory with a pattern or signature of data that may be
abstracted from dumped data for comparison and verification. Furthermore, it
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007