Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
appears to us that the lengthy discussion in Price beginning at the bottom of
column 3 through the bottom of column 8 essentially teaches this as one optional
feature. The paragraph beginning at column 4, line 34 of Price indicates that the
entire dump analysis system 150 in figure 1 may be a separate computer system or
one like computer system 110 in this figure. Moreover, it also indicates at the end
of that paragraph at lines 54 through 56 that “[i]n a further embodiment, the dump
analysis system 150 [including elements 160, 170, 180 and 190] is included as an
element of the computer system 110.” Thus, it appears to us that the artisan would
well appreciate that the executable file indexing mechanism 160 and the correlated
system comparison files 180 (the operation of which is generally set forth in figure
3 in flow chart form) may be inclusive or a part of the broadly defined “at least one
portion of the system memory.” Appellants’ own specification emphasizes that it
is the locking capability that is their contribution in the art rather than the ability to
seed a signature in a locked memory portion.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to Wilson at pages 11 and 12 of the
principal brief on appeal are noted. Initially, we do not understand the examiner’s
position in the answer as relying upon the encryption and decryption capabilities of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007